CANON 

OF   THE 

OLD  AND  NEW  TESTAMENTS 

ASCERTAINED, 

OR 

THE   BIBLE   COMPLETE 


WITHOUT    THE 


APOCRYPHA  AND  UNWRITTEN  TRADITIONS, 


A  NEW  EDITIOIV, 

3£t£ii5tii  for  tf)£  |3nj5lJ2tnnan  jooarlj  of  |3uUifatioii. 


BY  ARCHIBALD   ALEXANDER,  D.  D. 
Professor  in  tlie  Theological  Semiuary,  Princeton,  New  Jersey. 


PHILADELPHIA: 

PRESBYTERIAN   BOARD    OF   PUBLICATION, 
No.  265  CHESTNUT  STREET. 


Eutered,  according  to  the  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1851, 

By  A.  W.  Mitchell.  M.  D 

m  the  office  of  the  Clerk  of  the  District  Court  for  the 
Eastern  District  of  Pennsylvania. 


Stereotyped  by  S  l  o  T  e  &  M  o  o  n  e  y,  rhiladelphia. 
Printed  by  Wm.  S.  MARriBN. 


CONTENTS. 


PART.  I. 

PAGE 

Introduction — The  importance  of  ascertaining  the  true 
Canon  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  ----------      9 

SECTION   I. 

Early  use  and  import  of  the  word  Canon,  -    ------    17 

SECTION  II. 

Constitution  of  the  Canon  of  the  Old  Testament  by  Ezra — 
The  Canon  of  the  Old  Testament  as  it  now  exists,  sanc- 
tioned by  Christ  and  liis  Apostles — Catalogues  of  the  books 
by  some  of  the  early  Fathers— Agreement  of  Jews  and 
Christians  on  this  subject,     -----------21 

SECTION  III. 

Apocryphal  books — Their  origin — Importance  of  distinguish- 
ing between  canonical  and  apocryphal  books — Six  books  of 
the  latter  class  pronounced  canonical  by  the  Council  of 
Trent — Not  in  the  Hebrew,  nor  received  by  the  Jews, 
ancient  or  modern,       -------------36 

SECTION  IV. 

Testimonies  of  the  Christian  Fathers,  and  of  other  learned 
men,  down  to  the  time  of  the  Council  of  Trent,  respecting 
the  Apocrypha,  ---------------46 

SECTION  V. 

Internal  evidence  that  these  books  are  not  canonical — The 
writers  not  prophets,  and  do  not  claim  to  be  inspired,    -    -     66 

SECTION  VI. 

No  canonical  book  of  the  Old  Testament  has  been  lost,    -    -    84 

SECTION  VII. 
The  Oral  Law  of  the  Jews  without  foundation,   -----    94 


PAKT   II. 

SECTION  I. 
Method  of  settling  the  Canon  of  the  New  Testament,  -    -    -  113 

SECTION  II. 
Catalogues  of  the  books  of  the  New  Testament — Canonical 
books  only  cited  as  authority  by  the  Fathers,  and  read  in 
the  churches  as  Scripture,    -----------  124 

(3) 


4  CONTENTS. 

PAOS 

SECTION   III. 

Order  of  the  books  of  the  New  Testament — Time  of  the  gos- 
pels being  wiittcn — Notice  of  the  Evangehsts,      -     .    -    .  144 
SECTION  IV. 
Testimonies  to  Matthew's  gospel — Time  of  publication — Lan- 
guage in  which  it  was  originally  composed,      -----  I54 

SECTION  V. 
Gospel  of  Mark — On  what  occasion  published — Ascribed  to 
the  dictation  of  Peter  by  all  the  Fathers,    -     -     -     -     -     -165 

SECTION  VI. 
Gospel  of  Luke — Testimonies  of  the  Fathers  respecting  it,   -  173 

SECTION  VII. 
The  objections  of  J.  D.  Michaelis  to  the  canonical  authority 
of  the  gospels  of  Mark  and  Luke,  considered  and  answered,  179 
SECTION  VIII. 
The  gospel  of  John — Life  of  this  Evangelist — Occasion  and 
time  of  his  writing — Canonical  authority  indisputable,  -     -  192 
SECTION   IX. 
Tlie  Acts  of  the  Apostles — Luke  the  author — Canonical  au- 
thority   undisputed    by    the   Fathers  —  Rejected    only    by 

heretics, 200 

SECTION  X. 
I'estimonies  to  thp  canonical  authority  of  the  fourteen  epis- 
tles of  Paul,  205 

SECTION  XI. 
Canonical  authority  of  the  seven  Catholic  Epistles,  .    -    -    -  228 

SECTION   XII. 
Canonical  authority  of  the  book  of  Revelation,    -----  236 

SECTION  XIII. 
The  titles  given  to  the  sacred  Scriptures  by  the  Fathers  - 
These  books  not  concealed,  but  partially  known  and  refer- 
red to  by  enemies  as  well  as  friends — Citations — Ancient 
manuscripts — Remarks  of  Renncll,    --------  245 

SECTION  XIV. 
No  canonical  book  of  the  New  Testament  has  been  lost,  -    -  258 

SECTION   XV. 
Rules   for  determining  what  books  are  Apocryphal — Sorne 
account  of  the  Apocryphal  books  wliich  have  been  lost — All 
of  them  condemned  by  the  foregoing  rules — Reason  of  the 
abounding  of  such  books,      -----------  270 

SECTION  XVI. 

Apocryphal  books  which  are  still  extant — Letter  of  Abganis, 
King  of  Edessa,  to  Jesus,  and  his  answer — Epistle  to  the 
Laodiceans— Letters  of  Paul  to  Seneca— Protevangelion  of 
James — The  gospel  of  our  Saviour's  infancy — The  Acts  of 

Pilate— The  Acts  of  Paul  and  Thecla, 281 

SECTION   XVII. 

No  part  of  the  Christian  Revelation  handed  down  by  un- 
written tradition,     ---------     -----  301 

Appewdix — Notes,    --------------  343 


PREFACE. 


In  this  edition,  tlie  work  has  been  carefully  revised  by  the 
author,  and  many  additions  made  to  the  testimonies  adduced 
in  the  former  editions;  and  also  several  important  docu- 
ments not  contained  in  the  former  editions  have  been  placed 
in  the  appendix.  Some  alterations  have  also  been  made  in 
particular  passages,  but  not  of  sufficient  importance  to  require 
specification. 

In  the  London  edition  of  this  work  by  the  Rev.  Doctor 
Morison,  some  complaint  was  made  of  the  want  of  re- 
ferences sufficiently  distinct,  to  the  authors  from  which  the 
testimonies  have  been  taken.  In  most  cases,  the  works  from 
which  they  have  been  derived  are  mentioned;  and  in  a 
popular  treatise  of  this  kind,  which  has  more  the  character 
of  a  compilation  than  of  a  work  of  original  research,  it  is 
not  deemed  important  to  burden  the  margin  with  many 
notes  of  reference;  which  indeed  are  seldom  used  when 
most  abundant. 

1*  (V) 


VI  PREFACE. 

The  author  has  freely  availed  himself  of  all  the  informa- 
tion within  his  reach ;  but  the  authors  to  whom  he  is  espe- 
cially indebted  are,  Cosins's  Scholastic  Hhtory  of  the  Catuyji 
of  the  Old  Testament — Jones's  New  Method  of  Settling  the 
Canon  of  the  New  Testament — and  Lardner's  Credihility 
of  the  Gospel  History — The  Isagoge  of  Buddseus — The  The- 
saurus Philologicus  of  Hottinger,  and  Prideaux's  Connection. 
Dr.  Wordsworth's  work  on  the  Canon  of  the  Old  and  New 
Testaments,  and  Routh's  Reliquice  have  also  been  consulted. 
Several  valuable  works  on  the  Canon  have  been  published 
in  Great  Britain,  and  also  in  this  country,  since  the  first 
edition  of  this  work;  but,  though  more  valuable  for  the 
scholar,  none  of  them,  in  the  judgment  of  the  author,  arc 
such  as  to  supersede  this  as  a  popular  treatise,  which  can 
be  read  with  advantage  by  the  unlearned  as  well  as  the 
learned.  In  a  Scotch  edition  of  this  work,  a  copy  of  which 
the  author  has  seen,  there  is  an  important  error  in  giving 
the  author's  Christian  name  in  the  title  page.  Instead  of 
Archihald,  they  have  put  Alexander ;  making  the  first  and 
second  name  the  same.  The  only  reason  for  mentioning 
this  is,  lest  some  doubt  should  hereafter  arise  respecting  the 
genuine  authorship  of  the  volume. 

As  the  design  of  this  work  is  to  ascertain  where  the 
revelation  of  God  is  to  be  found,  it  is  assumed  usually 
that  the  whole  of  divine  revelation  has  been  committed  to 
writing.  But  there  are  many  under  the  Christian  name 
who  strenuously  maintain,  that  an  important  part  of  the 


PREFACE.  Vii 

revealed  will  of  God  has  been  handed  down  through  the 
Church  by  tradition.  It  therefore  seemed  necessary,  in 
order  to  render  the  work  complete,  to  examine  the  claims 
of  tradition;  in  which  the  author  has  departed  from  the 
common  method  of  treating  this  subject.  And  as  the  Jews, 
as  well  as  the  Romanists,  pretend  to  have  received  an  Oral 
Law,  handed  down  from  Moses  by  tradition,  a  chapter  has 
been  devoted  to  this  subject,  and  another  to  the  traditions 
of  the  Church  of  Rome. 

As  the  inspiration  of  the  gospels  of  Mark  and  Luke  had 
been  called  in  question  by  John  David  Michaelis  and  others, 
and  the  author  could  find  no  satisfactory  answer  to  the 
objections  of  this  learned  writer,  he  felt  it  to  be  a  duty  to 
endeavour  to  vindicate  these  books  of  the  New  Testament, 
and  to  prove  that  they  have  a  right  to  a  place  in  the  Canon ; 
where  in  fact  they  had  always  stood.  And  he  has  been 
gratified  to  learn  that  his  arguments  on  this  subject  have 
received  the  approbation  of  learned  and  pious  men.  The 
Rev.  Dr.  T.  H.  Home  has  inserted  the  substance  of 
them  in  his  "  Introduction  to  the  New  Testament," 
and  the  Rev.  Richard  "Watson  has  extracted  a  part  of 
them  and  inserted  them  in  his  Theological  Dictionary. 

There  never  was  a  time  when  the  friends  of  the  Bible  as 
an  inspired  volume  had  a  more  important  duty  to  perform 
in  its  defence,  than  at  the  present.  The  assaults  upon  the 
plenary  inspiration  of  the  sacred  Scriptures  are,  perhaps, 
more  dangerous,  because  more  plausible  and  insidious,  than 


Vm  PREFACE. 

when  divine  inspiration  is  openly  denied.  On  this  subject 
the  friends  of  revelation  must  be  firm,  and  not  yield  an 
inch  of  the  ground  hitherto  occupied  by  the  orthodox.  ^'If 
the  foundations  be  destroyed,  what  can  the  righteous  do  ?" 
If  this  volume  may  be  in  any  measure  useful  in  the 
defence  of  divine  revelation,  the  author  will  not  regret  the 
labour  bestowed  upon  it.  With  an  humble  prayer  for  its 
success  he  commits  it  to  the  Christian  public. 

A.  Alexandeb. 
Princeton,  K.  J.,  Jan.  1,  1851. 


INTRODUCTION. 

THE  IMPORTANCE  OF  ASCERTAINING  THE  TRUE  CANON 
OF  HOLY  SCRIPTURE. 

The  Bible  includes  a  large  number  of  separate  books, 
published  in  different  ages,  during  a  space  of  more 
than  fifteen  hundred  years.  Each  of  these  books 
when  first  published  formed  a  volume;  or  at  least, 
the  writings  of  each  author  were,  in  the  beginning, 
distinct;  and  if  they  had  continued  in  that  separate 
form,  and  had  been  transmitted  to  us  in  many  vo- 
lumes instead  of  one,  their  authority  would  not,  on 
this  account,  have  been  less,  nor  their  usefulness  di- 
minished. Their  collection  into  one  volume  is  merely 
a  matter  of  convenience ;  and  if  any  persons  choose 
now  to  publish  these  books  in  a  separate  form,  they 
cannot  with  propriety  be  charged  with  casting  any 
indignity  on  the  word  of  God. 

Hence  it  appears  that  besides  general  arguments 
to  demonstrate  that  the  Bible  contains  a  divine  revela- 
tion, there  is  need  of  special  proofs  to  evince  tliat 
each  of  the  books  now  included  in  that  sacred  volume, 
has  a  right  to  the  place  which  it  occupies ;  or  does  in 
reality  contain  a  part  of  that  revelation  which  God 
has  given. 

If,  therefore,  it  could  be  shown  (which  however  it 
never  can)  that  some  particular  book,  now  included  in 

(9) 


10  INTRODUCTION. 

the  Bible,  is  not  authentic,  the  conclusion  thence 
derived  would  only  affect  that  single  production ;  unless 
/  it  were  recognized  as  divine  by  the  writers  of  the  other 
!  books.  The  credit  of  the  whole  volume  would  not  be 
destroyed,  even  if  it  could  be  proved  that  one  half 
the  books  of  which  it  consists  are  spurious.  Infidels 
have  much  more  to  effect  in  overthrowing  the  Bible 
than  they  commonly  suppose.  It  is  incumbent  on 
them  to  demonstrate,  not  only  that  this  or  that  book 
is  false,  but  that  every  one  of  these  productions  is 
destitute  of  evidence,  that  it  has  been  derived  from 
the  inspiration  of  God. 

On  the  other  hand,  it  is  manifest  that  the  advocate 
of  divine  revelation  is  bound  to  defend  the  claims  of 
every  separate  portion  of  this  volume ;  or  to  reject 
from  it  that  part  which  has  no  evidence  of  a  divine 
origin.  It  is  necessary  that  he  should  be  able  to  ren- 
der a  good  reason  why  he  admits  any  pai^ticular  book, 
to  form  a  part  of  the  inspired  volume. 

It  is  true  that  the  antiquity  of  this  collection  claims 
for  it  a  high  degree  of  respect.  The  transmission  of 
this  volume  to  us,  through  so  many  centuries,  as  Holy 
Scripture,  should  teach  us  to  be  cautious  how  we 
question  what  is  so  venerable  for  its  antiquity.  But 
this  only  furnishes  one  presumptive  argument  in  favour 
of  each  book.  It  by  no  means  renders  all  further 
investigation  unnecessary  ;  much  less,  impious. 

It  is  easy  to  conceive  that  books  not  written  by  the 
inspiration  of  God,  might,  by  some  casualty  or  mis- 
take, find  a  place  in  the  sacred  volume.  In  fact,  we 
have  a  striking  example  of  this  very  thing,  in  the 
Greek  and  Latin  Bibles  whicli  are  now  in  use,  and  held 
to  be  sacred  by  a  large  majority  of  those  who  are  do- 


INTRODUCTION.  11 

nominated  Christians.  These  Bibles,  besides  the  books 
which  have  evidence  of  being  truly  inspired,  contain 
a  number  of  other  books,  the  claim  of  which  to  inspi- 
ration cannot  be  sustained  by  solid  and  satisfactory 
reasons.  This  inquiry,  therefore,  is  far  from  being 
one  of  mere  curiosity :  it  is  in  the  highest  degree  jprac- 
tical,  and  concerns  the  conscience  of  every  man  capa- 
ble of  making  the  investigation.  We  agree,  in  the  j 
general,  that  the  Bible  is  the  word  of  God,  and  an 
authoritative  rule ;  but  the  momentous  question  imme- 
diately presents  itself,  What  belongs  to  the  Bible  ?  Of 
what  books  does  this  sacred  volume  consist  ?  And  it 
will  not  answer,  to  resolve  to  take  it  as  it  has  come 
down  to  us,  without  further  inquiry ;  for  the  Bible  has 
come  down  to  us,  in  several  different  forms.  The  Vul- 
gate Latin  Bible,  which  alone  was  m  use  for  hundreds 
of  years  before  the  era  of  the  Reformation,  and  also 
the  Greek  version  of  the  Old  Testament,  contain  many 
books  not  in  the  copies  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures. 
Now,  to  determine  which  of  these  contains  the  whole 
of  the  inspired  books  given  to  the  Jews  before  the 
advent  of  Christ  and  no  more,  requires  research  and 
accurate  examination.  The  inquiry,  therefore,  is  not 
optional,  but  forces  itself  upon  every  conscientious 
man;  for  as  no  one  is  at  liberty  to  reject  from  the 
sacred  volume  one  sentence,  much  less  a  whole  book, 
of  the  revelation  of  God,  so  no  one  has  a  right  to 
add  anything  to  the  word  of  God;  and  of  conse- 
quence, no  one  may  receive  as  divine  what  others  have, 
without  authority,  added  to  the  Holy  Scriptures. 
Every  man,  therefore,  according  to  his  opportunity 
and  capacity,  is  under  a  moral  obligation  to  use  his 
best  endeavours  to  ascertain  what  books  do,  really,  and 


12  INTRODUCTION. 

of  right,  belong  to  the  Bible.  An  error  here,  on  either 
side,  is  dangerous ;  for,  on  the  one  hand,  if  we  reject 
a  part  of  divine  revelation,  we  dishonour  God,  and 
deprive  ourselves  of  the  benefit  which  might  be  de- 
rived from  that  portion  of  divine  truth ;  and  on  the 
other  hand,  we  are  guilty  of  an  equal  offence,  and  may 
suffer  an  equal  injury,  by  adding  spurious  productions 
to  the  Holy  Scriptures;  for  thus  we  adulterate  and 
poison  the  fountain  of  life,  and  subject  our  consciences 
to  the  authority  of  mere  men. 

I  think,  therefore,  that  the  importance  and  neces- 
sity of  this  inquiry  must  be  evident  to  every  person 
of  serious  reflection.  But  to  some  it  may  appear  that 
this  matter  has  been  long  ago  settled  on  the  firmest 
principles ;  and  that  it  can  answer  no  good  purpose  to 
agitate  questions,  which  have  a  tendency  to  produce 
doubts  and  misgivings  in  the  minds  of  common  Chris- 
tians, rather  than  a  confirmation  of  their  faith.  In 
reply  to  the  first  part  of  this  objection,  I  would  say, 
that  it  is  freely  admitted  that  this  subject  has  been 
ably  and  fully  discussed  long  ago,  and  in  almost  every 
age  until  the  present  time;  and  the  author  aims  at 
nothing  more,  in  this  short  treatise,  than  to  exhibit  to 
the  sincere  inquirer,  who  may  not  enjoy  better  means 
of  information,  the  subject  of  those  discussions  and 
proofs,  which  ought  to  be  in  the  possession  of  every 
Christian.  His  object  is  not  to  bring  forth  anything 
new,  but  to  collect  and  condense  in  a  narrow  space, 
what  has  been  written  by  the  judicious  and  the  learned, 
on  this  important  subject.  But,  that  discussion  tends 
to  induce  doubting  is  a  sentiment  unworthy  of  Chris- 
tians, who  maintain  that  their  religion  is  founded  on 
the  best  reasons,  and  who  are  commanded  "  to  give  to 


INTRODUCTION.  13 

every  man  a  reason  of  the  Jiope  that  is  in  them  J"  That 
faith  which  is  weakened  by  discussion  is  mere  preju- 
dice, not  true  faith.  They  who  receive  the  most  im- 
portant articles  of  their  religion  upon  trust  from 
human  authority,  are  continually  liable  to  be  thrown 
into  doubt;  and  the  only  method  of  obviating  this 
evil  is  to  dig  deep  and  lay  our  foundation  upon  a  rock. 
If  this  objection  had  any  weight,  it  would  discourage 
all  attempts  to  establish  the  truth  of  our  holy  religion 
by  argument;  and  would  also  damp  the  spirit  of  free 
inquiry  on  every  important  subject.  It  is  true,  how- 
ever, that  the  first  effect  of  free  discussion  may  be  to 
shake  that  easy  confidence  which  most  men  entertain, 
that  all  their  opinions  are  correct:  but  the  beneficial 
result  will  be,  that  instead  of  a  persuasion,  having  no 
other  foundation  than  prejudice,  it  will  generate  a  faith 
resting  on  the  firm  basis  of  evidence. 

There  is,  undoubtedly,  among  Christians,  too  great 
a  disposition  to  acquiesce,  without  examination,  in  the 
religion  of  their  forefathers.  There  is  too  great  an 
aversion  to  that  kind  of  research,  which  requires  time 
and  labour ;  so  that  many  who  are  fully  competent  to 
examine  the  foundation  on  which  their  religion  rests, 
never  take  the  pains  to  enter  on  the  investigation  ; 
and  it  is  to  be  regretted,  that  many  who  are  much 
occupied  with  speculations  on  abstruse  points  of  the- 
ology, waste  the  energies  of  their  minds  on  subjects 
which  can  yield  them  no  manner  of  profit,  while  they 
neglect  entirely,  or  but  superficially  attend  to,  points 
of  fundamental  importance. 

The  two  great  questions  most  deserving  the  atten- 
tion of  all  men,  are  :  first,  whether  the  Bible  and  all 
that  it  contains  is  from  God :  secondly,  what  are 
2 


14  IXTRODUCTION. 

those  trutlis  wlilcli  the  Bihle  -was  intended  to  teach  us. 
These  two  grand  inquiries  are  sufficient  to  give  occu- 
pation and  vigorous  exercise  to  intellectual  faculties  of 
the  highest  order  ;  and  they  are  not  removed  entirely 
out  of  the  reach  of  plain  uneducated  Christians. 
From  the  fountain  of  divine  truth  every  one  may 
draw  according  to  his  capacity.  But  these  inquiries 
are  neglected,  not  so  much  for  want  of  time  and  capa- 
city, as  because  we  take  no  pleasure  in  searching  for 
and  contemplating  divine  truth.  Just  in  proportion 
as  men  love  the  truth  and  value  the  Bible,  they  will 
take  an  interest  in  all  inquiries  which  relate  to  the 
authenticity,  canonical  authority,  and  correct  inter- 
pretation of  the  sacred  books.  The  time  will  come,  I 
doubt  not,  when  these  studies  will  occupy  the  minds  of 
thousands,  where  they  now  engage  the  attention  of 
one.  The  Bible  will  grow  into  importance  in  the  esti- 
mation of  men,  just  in  the  same  proportion  as  true 
religion  flourishes.  It  will  not  only  be  the  fashion 
to  associate  for  printing  and  circulating  the  Holy 
Scriptures ;  but  it  will  become  customary  for  men  of 
the  highest  literary  attainments,  as  well  as  others,  to 
study  the  sacred  pages  with  unceasing  assiduity  and 
prayer.  And,  in  proportion  as  the  Bible  is  understood 
in  its  simplicity  and  momentous  import,  the  mere  doc- 
trines of  men  will  disappear ;  and  the  dogmas  of  the 
schools  and  the  alliance  with  philosophy  being  re- 
nounced, there  will  be  among  sincere  inquirers  after 
truth,  an  increasing  tendency  to  unity  of  sentiment, 
as  well  as  unity  of  spirit.  The  pride  of  learning  and 
of  intellect  being  sacrificed,  and  all  distinctions  counted 
but  loss  for  the  excellency  of  the  knowledge  of 
Christ,  a  thousand  knotty  questions,  which  now  cause 


INTRODUCTION.  15 

divisions  and  gender  strifes,  will  be  forgotten  ;  and 
the  wonder  of  our  more  enlightened  posterity  will  be, 
how  good  men  could  have  wasted  their  time  and  their 
talents  in  such  unprofitable  speculations;  and,  more 
especially,  how  they  could  have  permitted  themselves 
to  engage  in  fierce  and  unbrotherly  contentions  about 
matters  of  little  importance. 

Then  also  men  will  no  more  neglect  and  undervalue 
the  Scriptures,  on  pretence  of  possessing  a  brighter 
light  within  them,  than  that  which  emanates  from  the 
divine  word.  That  spurious  devotion  which  affects  a 
superiority  to  external  means  and  ordinances,  will  be 
exchanged  for  a  simple,  sincere  reliance  on  the  re- 
vealed will  of  God ;  and  those  assemblies  from  which 
the  sacred  volume  is  now  excluded,  while  the  efi'usions 
of  every  heated  imagination  are  deemed  revelations 
of  the  Spirit,  will  become,  under  the  influence  of  di- 
vine truth,  churches  of  the  living  Grod. 

In  those  future  days  of  the  prosperity  of  Zion,  the 
service  of  the  most  high  God  will  be  considered  by 
men,  generally,  as  the  noblest  emplo^-ment ;  and  the 
best  talents  and  attainments  will  be  consecrated  on  the 
altar  of  God ;  and  the  enterprises,  and  the  la- 
bours which  they  now  undertake  to  gratify  an  ava- 
ricious, ambitious,  or  voluptuous  disposition,  will  be 
pursued  from  love  to  God  and  man.  The  merchant 
will  plan,  and  travel,  and  traffic,  to  obtain  the  means 
of  propagating  the  gospel  in  foreign  parts,  and  pro- 
moting Christian  knowledge  at  home ;  yea,  the  com- 
mon labourer  will  cheerfully  endure  toil  and  privation, 
that  he  may  have  a  mite  to  cast  into  the  treasury  of 
the  Lord. 

Now,  many  consider  all  that  is  given  to  circulate 


16  INTRODUCTION. 

the  Bible,  and  to  send  missionaries  and  tracts  for  the 
instruction  of  the  ignorant,  as  so  much  wasted ;  but 
then,  all  expenditures  will  be  considered  as  profuse 
and  wasteful,  which  terminate  in  mere  selfish  gratifi- 
cation ;  and  those  funds  will  alone  be  reckoned  useful, 
which  are  applied  to  promote  the  glory  of  -God  and  the 
welfare  of  men. 

These,  however,  may  appear  to  many  as  the  visions 
of  a  heated  imagination,  which  will  never  be  realized  ; 
but  if  the  same  change  in  the  views  and  sentiments  of 
men  which  has  been  going  on  for  thirty  years  past, 
shall  continue  to  advance  with  the  same  steady  pace, 
half  a  century  will  not  have  elapsed  from  the  present 
time,  before  such  a  scene  will  be  exhibited  to  the  ad- 
miring eyes  of  believers,  as  will  fully  justify  the  fore- 
going anticipations. 

But  I  have  wandered  wide  of  my  subject — I  will 
now  recall  the  attention  of  the  reader  to  the  consid- 
eration of  the  exceeding  great  importance  of  ascer- 
taining the  true  Canon  of  Holy  Scripture.  This  inves- 
tigation may,  indeed,  appear  dry  and  unentertaining, 
but  every  thing  which  bears  any  relation  to  the  great 
Charter  of  our  privileges  and  our  hopes,  ought  to  be 
interesting  to  us.  It  has  been  my  object,  to  bring 
this  subject  not  only  more  conveniently  within  the 
reach  of  the  theological  student,  but  also  to  a  level 
with  the  capacity  of  the  common  Christian.  That 
this  work  may  in  some  humble  degree  subserve  the 
cause  of  the  Bible,  is  the  sincere  prayer  of 

THE  AUTHOK. 


SECTION  L 


EARLY  USE  AND  IMPORT  OF  THE  WORD  CANON. 

The  word  Canon  properly  signifies  a  rule :  and  it  is 
used  in  this  sense  several  times  in  the  New  Testament, 
as  Gal.  vi.  16;  "As  many  as  walk  according  to  this 
rule."  Phil.  iii.  16;  "Let  us  walk  by  the  same  rule."* 
But  in  these  passages  there  is  no  reference  to  the 
Scriptui'es  as  a  volume. 

The  word  Canon,  however,  was  early  used  by  the 
Christian  Fathers  to  designate  the  inspired  Scriptures. 
Iren^us,  speaking  of  the  Scriptures,  calls  them  "the 
Canon  of  truth."  Clement  of  Alexandria,  referring 
to  a  quotation  of  the  gospel  according  to  the  Egyp- 
tians, says,  "But  they  follow  anything,  rather  than 
the  true  canonical  gospels,  "f 

EuSEBius  says  of  Origen,  "But  in  the  first  book  of 
his  commentaries  on  the  gospel  of  Matthew,  observing 
the  ecclesiastical  Canon,  he  declares  that  he  knew  of 
four  gospels  only." 

Athanasius,  in  his  Festal  Epistle,  speaks  of  three 
sorts  of  books ;  the  canonical — such  as  were  allowed  to 

*  The  word  Yiavwv  literally  signifies  a  reed,  by  which  the  di- 
mensions of  anything  were  measured ;  and  hence  it  came  figura- 
tively to  signify  a  rule. 

The  word  was  used  by  the  Greek  grammarians  to  designate 
those  authors  who  were  considered  as  authority  in  matters  of 
criticism;  Vid.  Wordsworth  on  the  Canon,  p.  5. 

t  Strom.  Lib.  iii.  p,  453. 

2*  (17) 


18        EARLY  USE  OF  TUE  WORD  CANON. 

be  read — and  such  as  were  Apocryphal.  By  the  first 
he  evidently  means  such  as  we  now  call  canonical. 

The  Council  of  Laodicea  ordained,  "that  none  but 
canonical  books  should  be  read  in  the  church ;  that  is, 
the  books  of  the  Old  and  Ncav  Testaments." 

KuFix,  after  enumerating  the  books  of  the  Old  and 
New  Testaments,  goes  on  to  mention  three  classes  of 
books.  1.  Such  as  were  included  in  the  Canon.  2. 
Ecclesiastical,  or  such  as  were  allowed  to  be  read.  3. 
Apocryphal,  such  as  were  not  permitted  to  be  publicly 
read.* 

Jerome  often  speaks  of  the  Canon  of  Scripture, 
and  mentions  books  which  might  be  read,  but  did  not 
belong  to  the  Canon. f 

The  third  Council  of  Carthage  ordained,  "That 
nothing  beside  the  canonical  Scriptures  be  read  in  the 
church,  under  the  name  of  the  divine  Scriptures." 

Augustine  often  makes  mention  of  the  canonical 
Scriptures,  and  the  whole  Canon  of  Scripture,  meaning 
to  designate  all  the  sacred  books  of  the  Old  and  New 
Testaments.  "We  read  of  some,"  says  he,  "  that  they 
searched  the  Scriptures  daily,  whether  these  things 
were  so.  What  Scriptures,  I  pray,  except  the  canoni- 
cal Scriptures  of  the  Law  and  the  Prophets  ?  To 
them  have  been  since  added,  the  Gospels,  the  Epistles 
of  the  Apostles,  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  and  the 
Revelation  of  John."f 

*  Expositio  in  Symholum  Ap.ostolorum,  p.  26. 

After  giving  a  catalogue  both  of  the  books  of  the  Old  and  New 
Testaments,  he  says,  •'  lla'c  sunt  quai  patres  iutei"  Canonem  con- 
chiscrunt." 

f  Prolog.  Cial.  in  mnltis  locis. 

t  De  Dortrind  Chi'istinna,  vol.  Hi.  Lih.  ii.pt.  l,p.41.  Ed. 
Paris.    Ejiist.  ad  liicron,  19.    Jld  Paulinumy  112. 


EARLY  USE  OF  THE  WORD  CANON.       19 

Chrysostom  says,  "They  fall  into  great  absurdi- 
ties, who  will  not  follow  the  Canon  of  the  divine  Scrip- 
ture, but  trust  to  their  own  reasoning." 

Isidore  of  Pelusium  observes,  "  That  these  things 
are  so,  we  shall  perceive,  if  we  attend  to  the  Canon  of 
truth — the  divine  Scriptures." 

And  Leontius  of  Constantinople,  having  cited  the 
whole  catalogue  of  the  books  of  sacred  Scripture, 
from  Genesis  to  Revelation,  concludes,  "  These  are  the 
ancient  and  the  new  books,  which  are  received  in  the 
church  as  canonical." 

Eusebius  informs  us  that  Origen,  in  his  Exposition 
on  Matthew,  ^'enumerates  the  books  of  Scripture  ac- 
cording to  the  Canon  of  the  Church.'"'^ 

Epiphanius,  speaking  of  certain  heretics,  says, 
"  They  received  the  apocryphal  Acts  of  Andreio  and 
Thomas  J  rejecting  the  Canon  received  hy  the  CJiurch.''f 

Philastrius  speaks  of  the  distinction  of  Canonical 
and  Apocryphal  as  well  known  in  his  time. J 

From  the  authorities  cited  above,  it  will  evidently 
appear,  that  at  an  early  period  the  sacred  Scriptures 
were  carefully  distinguished  from  all  other  writings, 
and  formed  a  rule,  which  all  Christians  considered  to 
be  authoritative:  and  that  this  collection  of  sacred 
writings  received  the  name  of  Canon. || 

The  division  of  the  sacred  books  which  is  most  an- 
cient and  universal,  is,  into  the  Old  Testament,  and 
the  New  Testament.     The  apostle  Paul  himself  lays 

*  Eus.  Hist.  Lib.  VI.  c.  25.   f  Hteres.  61.   t  De  Haeresibus,  40. 

II  It  cannot  be  denied,  however,  that  the  word  Canon  is  not 
always  used  by  the  Fathers  in  the  same  definite  sense.  Some- 
times, under  this  name,  they  include  books  not  inspired,  and  this 
has  given  some  plausibility  to  the  Popish  doctrine  respecting  the 
Apocrypha. 


20        EARLY  USE  OF  THE  WORD  CANON. 

a  foundation  for  this  distinction;  for,  in  his  second 
epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  2  Cor.  iii.  14,  he  uses  the 
phrases  Old  Testament  and  New  Testament;  and  in 
one  instance,  designates  the  Scriptures  of  the  Law, 
by  the  former  title:  "For  until  this  day,"  says  he, 
"remaineth  the  same  veil  untaken  away  in  the  reading 
of  the  Old  Testament." 

It  is  our  object,  in  this  work,  to  inquire  into  the 
Canon,  both  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament,  and  to 
discuss  all  the  principal  questions  connected  with  this 
subject. 


OLD   TESTAMENT   CANON.  21 


SECTION  II. 

CONSTITUTION    OP   THE    CANON    OP   THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  BY 

EZRA THE   CANON   OP   THE  OLD  TESTAMENT,  AS  IT  NOW 

EXISTS,  SANCTIONED  BY  CHRIST  AND  HIS  APOSTLES — 
CATALOGUES  OF  THE  BOOKS  BY  SOME  OP  THE  EARLY  FA- 
THERS— AGREEMENT  OP  JEWS  AND  CHRISTIANS  ON  THIS 
SUBJECT. 

The  five  books  of  Moses  were,  when  finished,  care- 
fully deposited  by  the  side  of  the  ark  of  the  Covenant, 
Deut.  xxxi.  24 — 26.  "And  it  came  to  pass,  Avhen 
Moses  had  made  an  end  of  writing  the  words  of  this 
law  in  a  book,  until  they  were  finished,  that  Moses 
commanded  the  Levites  which  bore  the  ark  of  the  cove- 
nant of  the  Lord,  saying,  Take  this  book  of  the  law, 
and  put  it  in  the  side  of  the  ark  of  the  covenant  of 
the  Lord  your  God,  that  it  may  be  there  for  a  witness 
against  thee." 

No  doubt,  copies  of  the  sacred  volume  were  made 
out,  before  it  was  deposited  in  the  most  holy  place ; 
for  as  it  was  there  inaccessible  to  any  but  the  priests, 
the  people  generally  must  have  remained  ignorant, 
had  there  been  no  copies  of  the  law.  But  we  know 
that  copies  were  written,  for  it  was  one  of  the  laws, 
respecting  the  duty  of  a  king,  when  such  an  officer 
should  be  appointed,  that  he  should  write  out  a  copy 
of  the  law  with  his  own  hand.  Deut.  xvii.  18 — 20, 
*'And  it  shall  be  when  he  sitteth  upon  the  throne  of 


22  OLD  TESTAMENT  CANON. 

his  kiugdom,  tliat  he  shall  write  him  a  copy  of  this 
law  in  a  book,  out  of  that  which  is  before  the  priests, 
the  Levites.  And  it  shall  be  with  him,  and  he  shall 
read  therein,  all  the  days  of  his  life ;  that  he  may 
learn  to  fear  the  Lord  his  God,  to  keep  all  the  words 
of  this  law  and  these  statutes  to  do  them ;  that  his 
heart  be  not  lifted  up  above  his  brethren,  and  that  he 
turn  not  aside  from  the  commandment  to  the  right 
hand  or  to  the  left :  to  the  end  that  he  may  prolong 
his  days  in  his  kingdom,  he  and  his  children  in  the 
midst  of  Israel."  It  is  related  by  Josephus,  that  by 
the  direction  of  Moses,  a  copy  of  the  law  was  prepared 
for  each  of  the  tribes  of  Israel. 

It  seems  that  the  book  of  Joshua  was  annexed  to 
the  volume  of  the  Pentateuch ;  for  we  read  that 
"  Joshua  wrote  these  words  in  the  book  of  the  law  of 
God."  See  Josh  i.  8 ;  xxiv.  26.  And  the  matters 
contained  in  this  book  were  of  public  concern  to 
the  nation,  as  well  as  those  recorded  in  the  law. 
For,  as  in  the  latter  were  written  statutes  and  or- 
dinances, to  direct  them  in  all  matters  sacred  and 
civil;  so  in  the  former  was  recorded  the  division 
of  the  land  among  the  tribes.  The  possession  of 
each  tribe  was  here  accurately  defined,  so  that  this 
book  served  as  a  national  deed  of  conveyance.  When 
other  books  were  added  to  the  Canon,  no  doubt,  the 
inspired  men  who  were  moved  by  the  Holy  Spirit  to 
write  tlicm,  would  be  careful  to  deposit  copies  in  the 
sanctuary,  and  to  have  otlier  copies  put  into  circula- 
tion. ]5ut  on  this  su])ject  we  have  no  precise  informa- 
tion. We  know  not  Avitli  wliat  degree  of  care  the  sa- 
cred books  were  guarded,  or  to  Avhat  extent  copies 
"were  multiplied. 


OLD   TESTAMENT   CANON.  23 

A  single  fact  shows  that  the  sacred  autograph  of 
Moses  had  well  nigh  perished,  in  the  idolatrous  reigns 
of  Manasseh  and  Anion,  but  was  found,  during  the 
reign  of  the  pious  Josiah,  among  the  rubbish  of  the 
temple.  It  cannot,  however,  be  reasonably  supposed, 
that  there  were  no  other  copies  of  the  law  scattered 
through  the  nation.  It  does  indeed  seem  that  the 
young  king  had  never  seen  the  book,  and  was  igno- 
rant of  its  contents,  until  it  was  now  read  to  him  ;  but 
while  the  autograph  of  Moses  had  been  misplaced,  and 
buried  among  the  ruins,  many  pious  men  might  have 
possessed  private  copies. 

And  although  at  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  and 
of  the  temple  by  Nebuchadnezzar,  this  precious  vo-  \ 
lume  was,  in  all  probability,  destroyed  with  the  ark  j 
and  all  the  holy  apparatus  of  the  sanctuary ;  yet  we  ' 
are  not  to  credit  the  Jewish  tradition,  too  readily  re- 
ceived by  the  Christian  Fathers,  that,  on  this  occa- 
sion, all  the  copies  of  the  Scriptures  were  lost,  and 
that  Ezra  restored  the  whole  by  a  miracle.  This  is  a 
mere  Jewish  fable,  depending  on  no  higher  authority 
than  a  passage  in  the  fourth  book  of  Esdras,  and  is 
utterly  inconsistent  with  facts  recorded  in  the  sacred 
volume.  We  know  that  Daniel  had  a  copy  of  the  j 
Scriptures,  for  he  quotes  them,  and  makes  express 
mention  of  the  prophecies  of  Jeremiah.  And  Ezra 
is  called  ^'  a  ready  scribe  in  the  law  ;"  and  it  is  said, 
in  the  sixth  chapter  of  Ezra,  that  when  the  temple 
was  finished,  the  functions  of  the  priests  and  Levites 
were  regulated,  "as  it  is  W7ntten  in  the  hook  of  Moses.'" 
And  this  was  many  years  before  Ezra  came  to  Jeru- 
salem. And  in  the  eighth  chapter  of  Nehemiah,  it  is 
said  that  Ezra,  at  the  request  of  the  people,  "  brought 


24  CANON  BY  EZRA. 

the  law  before  the  congregation,  and  he  read  therein 
from  the  morning  until  mid-daj.  And  Ezra  opened 
the  book  in  the  sight  of  all  the  people."  It  is  evi- 
dent, therefore,  that  all  the  copies  of  the  Scriptures 
were  not  lost  during  the  captivity.  This  story,  no 
doubt,  originated  from  two  facts :  the  first,  that  the 
autographs  in  the  temple,  had  been  destroyed  with  that 
sacred  edifice ;  and  the  second,  that  Ezra  took  great 
pains  to  have  correct  copies  of  the  Scriptures  prepared 
and  circulated. 

It  seems  to  be  agreed  by  all,  that  the  forming  of 
the  present  Canon  of  the  Old  Testament  should  be 
attributed  to  Ezra.  To  assist  him  in  this  work,  the 
Jewish  writers  inform  us,  that  there  existed  in  his 
time  a  great  synagogue^  consisting  of  one  hundred 
and  twenty  men,  including  Daniel  and  his  three 
friends,  Shadrach,  Meshach  and  Abednego  ;  the  pro- 
phets Ilaggai  and  Zechariah ;  and  also  Simon  the 
Just.  But  it  is  very  absurd  to  suppose  that  all  these 
lived  at  one  time,  and  formed  one  synagogue,  as  they 
are  pleased  to  represent  it :  for,  from  the  time  of 
\  Daniel  to  that  of  Simon  the  Just,  no  less  than  two 
hundred  and  fifty  years  intervened. 

It  is,  however,  not  improbable  that  Ezra  was  as- 
sisted in  this  great  work,  by  many  learned  and  pious 
men,  who  were  cotemporary  witli  him  ;  and  as  pro- 
phets had  always  been  the  superintendents,  as  well  as 
writers  of  the  sacred  volume,  it  is  likely  that  the  in- 
spired men  who  lived  at  the  same  time  as  Ezra,  would 
give  attention  to  this  work.  But  in  regard  to  this 
great  synagogue,  the  only  thing  probable  is,  that  the 
men  who  are  said  to  have  belonged  to  it,  did  not  live 
in  one  age,  but  successively,  until  the  time  of  Simon 


CANON   BY   EZRA.  25 

tlie  Jnst,  wlio  was  made  high  priest  about  twenty-five  j 
years  after  the  death  of  Alexander  the  Great.  This 
opinion  has  its  probability  increased,  by  the  considera- 
tion that  the  Canon  of  the  Old  Testament  appears 
not  to  have  been  fully  completed,  until  about  the  time 
of  Simon  the  Just.  Malachi  seems  to  have  lived  after 
the  time  of  Ezra,  and  therefore  his  prophecy  could 
not  have  been  added  to  the  Canon  by  this  eminent 
scribe ;  unless  we  adopt  the  opinion  of  the  Jews,  who 
will  have  Malachi  to  be  no  other  than  Ezra  himself; 
maintaining,  that  while  Ezra  was  his  proper  name,  he 
received  that  of  Malachi,  from  the  circumstance  of 
his  having  been  sent  to  superintend  the  religious  con- 
cerns of  the  Jews ;  for  the  import  of  that  name  is,  a 
messenger,  or  one  sent. 

But  this  is  not  all — in  the  book  of  Nehemiah,*  men- 
tion is  made  of  the  high  priest  Jaddua,  and  of  Darius  ' 
Codomannus,  king  of  Persia,  both  of  whom  lived  at 
least  a  hundred  years  after  the  time  of  Ezra.  In  the 
third  chapter  of  the  first  book  of  Chronicles,  the  gene-  ; 
alogy  of  the  sons  of  Zerubbabel  is  carried  down,  at 
least  to  the  time  of  Alexander  the  Great.  This  book, 
therefore,  could  not  have  been  put  into  the  Canon  by 
Ezra ;  nor  much  earlier  than  the  time  of  Simon  the 
Just.  The  book  of  Esther,  also,  was  probably  added 
during  this  interval. 

The  probable  conclusion,  therefore,  is  that  Ezra 
began  this  work,  and  collected  and  arranged  all  the 
sacred  books  which  belonged  to  the  Canon  before  his 
time,  and  that  a  succession  of  pious  and  learned  men  ' 
continued  to  pay  attention  to  the  Canon,  until  the 
whole  was  completed,  about  the  time  of  Simon  the 
*  Nehemiah  xii.  22. 

8 


26  CANON   OF  THE   OLD   TESTAMENT 

Just.  After  which,  nothing  was  added  to  the  Canon 
of  the  Okl  Testament. 

Most,  however,  are  of  opinion  that  nothing  was 
added  after  the  book  of  Malachi  was  written,  except 
a  few  names  and  notes ;  and  that  all  the  books  be- 
loiiirinf]:  to  the  Canon  of  the  Old  Testament,  were  col- 
lected  and  inserted  in  the  sacred  volume  by  Ezra  him- 
self. And  this  opinion  seems  to  be  the  safest,  and  is 
not  incredible  in  itself.  It  accords  also  with  the  uni- 
form tradition  of  the  Jews,  that  Ezra  completed  the 
Canon  of  the  Old  Testament ;  and  that  after  Malachi 
there  arose  no  prophet  who  added  anything  to  the 
sacred  volume.* 

Whether  the  books  were  now  collected  into  a  single 
volume,  or  were  bound  up  in  several  codices,  is  a  ques- 
tion of  no  importance.  If  we  can  ascertain  what  books 
were  received  as  canonical,  it  matters  not  in  what 
form  they  were  preserved.  It  seems  probable,  how- 
ever, that  the  sacred  books  were  at  this  time  distri- 
buted into  three  volumes,  the  Law ;  the  Prophets, 
and  the  Hagiographa.  This  division,  we  know  to  be 
as  ancient  as  the  time  of  our  Saviour,  for  he  says, 
"  These  arc  the  words  which  I  spake  unto  you  while  I 
was  yet  witli  you,  that  all  things  must  be  fulfilled 
wliicli  are  written  in  the  law,  and  in  the  prophets, 
and  in  tlie  psalms,  concerning  me."  Luke  xxiv.  44. 
Josephus  also  makes  mention  of  this  division,  and  it  is 

*  The  Jews  are  accustomed  to  call  Malachi  the  "  seal  of  the 
Prophets."  Jerome  says  :  "  Post  IlafTfrfcjim  et  Zachariam  nul- 
los  alios  Prophetas  usque  ad  Johannem  Baptistam  videram."  That 
is,  "After  Hagcrai  and  Zacharias,  even  to  the  time  of  Jolm  the 
Baptist,  I  have  found  no  other  prophets."     In  Esaiam  xlix.  2. 


SANCTIONED   BY   CHRIST   AND   HIS   APOSTLES.      27 

by  tlie  Jews,  with  one  consent,  referred  to  Ezra,  as  its 
author. 

In  establishing  the  Canon  of  the  Old  Testament, 
we  might  labour  under  considerable  uncertainty  and 
embarrassment,  in  regard  to  several  books  were  it  not 
that  the  whole  of  what  were  called  "the  Scriptures," 
and  which  were  included  in  the  threefold  division 
mentioned  above,  received  the  explicit  sanction  of  our 
Lord.  He  was  not  backward  to  reprove  the  Jews  for 
disobeying,  misinterpreting,  and  adding  their  tradi- 
tions to  the  Scriptures,  but  he  never  drops  a  hint  that 
they  had  been  unfaithful  or  careless  in  the  preserva- 
tion of  the  sacred  books.  This  argument  for  the  in- 
tegrity of  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament  was  used 
by  Origen,  as  we  are  informed  by  Jerome,  who  says : 
"  Si  aliquis  dixerit  Hebrasos  libros,  a  Judaeis  esse  fal- 
satos,  audiat  Origenem :  Quod  nunquam  Dominus 
et  Apostoli,  qui  csetera  crimina  in  Scribis,  de  hoc 
crimine  quod  est  maximum^  reticuissent."  In  Esai. 
cvi,  tom.  iii.  p.  63.  So  far  from  this,  he  refers  to 
the  Scriptures '  as  an  infallible  rule,  which  "  must 
be  fulfilled,"  Mark  xiv.  49,  and  "could  not  be  bro- 
ken." John  X.  35.  "  Search  the  Scriptures,"  John 
V.  39,  said  he,  "  for  in  them  ye  think  ye  have  eter- 
nal life,  and  they  are  they  which  testify  of  me."  The 
errors  of  the  Sadducees  are  attributed  to  an  igno- 
rance of  the  Scriptures:  and  they  are  never  men- 
tioned but  with  the  highest  respect,  and  as  the  un- 
erring word  of  God.  The  apostle  Paul,  also,  referring 
principally,  if  not  wholly,  to  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old 
Testament,  says,  "  And  that  from  a  child  thou  hast 
known  the  holy  Scriptures,  which  are  able  to  make 
thee  wise  unto  salvation.     All   Scripture  is  given  bj 


28  CAXOX   OF   THE   OLD   TESTAMENT 

inspiration  of  God."  2  Tim.  iii.  15,  16.  They  arc  also 
called  by  this  apostle,  "  the  oracles  of  God;"  "the 
lively  oracles,"  "the  word  of  God;"  and  when 
quotations  are  made  from  David,  it  is  represented  as 
"the  Holy  Ghost  speaking  by  the  mouth  of  David." 
Acts  i.  16  ;  iv.  25.  The  testimony  of  Peter  is  not 
less  explicit,  for  he  says,  "The  prophecy  came  not 
in  old  time  by  the  will  of  man,  but  holy  men  of  God 
spake  as  they  were  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost."  2  Pet. 
i.  21.  And  the  apostle  James  speaks  of  the  Scrip- 
tures with  equal  confidence  and  respect :  "  And  re- 
ceive with  meekness,"  says  he,  "the  ingrafted  Avord 
which  is  able  to  save  your  souls."  James  i.  21 — 23. 
"  And  the  Scripture  was  fulfilled  which  saith,"  &c. 
"  Do  ye  think  that  the  Scripture  saith  in  vain  ?"  James 
iv.  5,  kc. 

We  have,  therefore,  an  important  point  established 
with  the  utmost  certainty,  that  the  volume  of  Scrip- 
ture which  existed  in  the  time  of  Clirist  and  his  apos- 
tles was  uncorrupted,  and  was  esteemed  by  them  an 
infallible  rule.  Now,  if  we  can  ascertain  what  books 
were  then  included  in  the  Sacred  Volume,  we  shall 
be  able  to  settle  the  Canon  of  the  Old  Testament 
without  uncertainty. 

But  here  lies  the  difficulty.  Neither  Christ  nor  any 
of  his  apostles  has  given  us  a  catalogue  of  the  hooka 
wliicli  composed  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament. 
They  have  distinctly  quoted  a  number  of  these  books, 
and,  so  far,  the  evidence  is  complete.  We  know  that 
tlie  law,  and  the  Prophets,  and  the  Psalms  were 
included  in  their  Canon.  But  this  does  not  ascertain, 
paiticuliirly,  whether  the  very  same  books  which  wo 
now  find  in  the  Old  Testament  were  then  found  in  it 


SANCTIONED   BY   CUllIST   AND   HIS   APOSTLES.      29 

and  no  others.    It  is  necessary  then,  to  resort  to  other 
sources   of   information.      And,  happily,   the  Jewish 
historian  Josephus  furnishes  us  with  the  very  informa- 
tion which  we  want ;  not,  indeed,  as  explicitly  as  we 
could  wish,  but  sufficiently  so  to  lead  us  to  a  very  sa- 
tisfactory conclusion.     He  does  not  name  the  books 
of  the  Old  Testament,  but  he  numbers  them,  and  so 
describes  them  that  there  is  scarcely  room  for  any 
mistake.     The  important  passage  to  which  we  refer  is  \ 
in  his  first  book  against  Apion.     "  We  have,"  says  he, 
*' only  two-and-tAventy  books,  which  are  justly  believed  i 
to  be  of  divine  authority — of  which  five  are  the  books  of  I 
Moses.     From  the  death  of  Moses  to  the  reign  of   1 
Artaxerxes,  the  son  of  Xerxes,  king  of  Persia,  the 
Prophets,   who  were  the  successors  of  Moses,   have 
written  in  thirteen  books.     The  remaining  four  books   j 
contain  hymns  to  God,  and  precepts  for  the  regulation 
of  human  life."    Now,  the  five  books  of  Moses  are  uni- 
versally   agreed    to   be   Genesis,    Exodus,    Leviticus, 
Numbers,    and   Deuteronomy.      The    thirteen    books  ' 
written  by  the  prophets  will  include  Joshua,  Judges, 
with  Ruth,  Samuel,  Kings,  Isaiah,  Jeremiah  with  La- 
mentations, Ezekiel,   Daniel,  the  twelve  minor  Pro- 
phets, Job,  Ezra,  Esther,  and  Chronicles.     The  four 
remaining  books  will  be,  Psalms,  Proverbs,  Ecclesias- 
tes,  and  the  Song  of  Solomon,  which  make  the  whole 
number  twenty-two.   The  Canon  then  existing  is  proved 
to  be  the   same  as  that  w^hich  we  now  possess.     It 
would   appear,  indeed,  that  these  books  might  more 
conveniently  be  reckoned  twenty-four ;  and  this  is  the 
present  method  of  numbering  them  by  the  modern 
Jews ;  but  formerly  the  number  was  regulated  by  that 
of  the  Hebrew  alphabet,  which  consists  of  twenty-two 
3* 


30  TESTIMONY   OF  JOSEPIIUS. 

letters  :  therefore  they  annexed  the  small  book  of  Ruth 
to  Judges ;  and  probably  it  is  a  continuation  of  this 
book  by  the  same  author.  They  added,  also,  the  La- 
mentations of  Jeremiah  to  his  prophecy,  and  this  was 
natural  enough.  As  to  the  minor  prophets,  which 
form  twelve  separate  books  in  our  Bibles,  they  were, 
anciently,  always  reckoned  one  book,  so  they  are  con- 
sidered in  every  ancient  catalogue,  and  in  all  quota- 
tions from  them.  Josephus  adds,  to  what  is  cited 
above,  the  following  :  "But  as  to  the  books  which  have 
been  written  since  the  time  of  Artaxerxes  until  our 
\times,  they  are  not  considered  worthy  of  the  same 
credit  as  the  former,  because  they  do  not  contain  ac- 
curate doctrine  sanctioned  by  the  prophets."* 

It  will  not  be  supposed  that  any  change  could  have 
occurred  in  the  Canon  from  the  time  of  our  Saviour 
and  his  apostles,  to  that  in  which  Josephus  wrote. 
Indeed,  he  may  be  considered  the  contemporary  of  the 
apostles^  »s  he  was  born  about  the  time  of  Paul's  con- 
version to  Christianity,  and  was  therefore  grown  up 
to  man'»  age  long  before  the  death  of  this  apostle ; 
and  the  apostle  John  probably  survived  him.  And  it 
must  be  remembered  that  Josephus  is  here  giving  his 
testimony  to  a  public  fact :  he  is  declaring  what  books 
were  received  as  divine  by  his  nation  ;  and  he  does  it 
without  hesitation  or  inconsistency.  "  We  have," 
!  Bays  he,  "  only  twenty-two  books  which  are  justly  be- 
lieved to  be  of  divine  authority." 

We  are  able  also  to  adduce  other  testimony  to  prove 
the  same  thing.  Some  of  the  early  Christian  Fathers, 
who  had  been  brought  up  in  Paganism,  when  they  cm- 

*  Contra  Apioncm  ;  Euscb.  iii.  10. 


CATALOGUES  BY  THE  EARLY  FATHERS.      31 

"braced  Christianity,  were   curious  in   tlieir  inquiries 
into  the  Canon  of  the  Old  Testament ;  and  the  result 
of  the  researches  of  some  of  them  still  remains.     Me-  i 
LITO,  bishop  of  Sardis,  *travelled  into  Judea,  for  the^ 
very  purpose  of  satisfying  himself,  on  this  point.  And 
although  his  own  writings  are  lost,  Eusebius  has  pre- 
served his  catalogue  of  the  books  of  the  Old  Testa-^ 
ment ;  from  which  it  appears,  that  the  very  same  books  j 
were,  in  his  day,  received  into  the  Canon,  as  are  now 
found  in  our  Hebrew  Bibles.     In  the   catalogue  of 
Melito,    presented   by  Eusebius,  after   Proverbs,  the 
word  Wisdom  occurs,  which  nearly  all  commentators 
have  been  of  opinion  is  only  another  name  for  the  same 
book,  and  not  the  name  of  the  book  now  called  "  The 
Wisdom  of  Solomon."     There  is,  however,  an  omis- 
sion  of  Esther   and  Nehemiah.     As  to  the  latter,  it 
creates  no  difficulty,  for  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  are  com-j 
monly  counted  as  one  book ;  and  some   learned   men 
are  of  opinion  that  Ezra  being  the  author  of  Esther, 
this  book  also  is  included  under  the  name  JEsdras.  '• 
The   interval   between   Melito  and  Josephus   is    not 
a  hundred  years,  so  that  no  alteration  in  the  Canon 
can  be  reasonably  supposed  to  have  taken  place  in  this 
period. 

Very  soon  after  Melito,  Origen  furnishes  us  with  a 
catalogue  of  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  which 
perfectly  accords  with  our  Canon,  except  that  he  omits 
the  Minor  Prophets ;  which  omission  must  have  been 
a  mere  slip  of  the  pen,  in  him  or  his  copyist,  as  it  is 
certain  that  he  received  this  as  a  book  of  Holy  Scrip- 
ture :  and  the  number  of  the  books  of  the  Old  Testa- 
tament,  given  by  him  in  this  very  place,  cannot  be 


32      CATALOGUES  EY  THE  EARLY  FATHERS. 

completed  without  reckoning  the  twelve  Minor  Pro- 
phets as  one. 

After  Origen,  we  have  catalogues  in  succession,  not 
only  by  men  of  the  first  authority  in  the  church,  but 
by  councils,  consisting  of  numerous  bishops,  all  which 
are  perfectly  the  same  as  our  own.  It  will  be  sufficient 
merely  to  refer  to  these  sources  of  information.  Cata- 
logues of  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament  have  been 

o 

given  by  Atiianasius  ;  by  Cyril  ;  by  Augustine  ; 
by  Jerome  ;  by  Rufin  ;  by  the  council  of  Laodi- 
cea,  in  their  LX.  Canon;  and  by  the  tue  council  of 
Caktiia(1E.  And  when  it  is  considered,  that  all  these 
catalogues  exactly  correspond  with  our  present  Canon 
of  the  Hebrew  JMble,  the  evidence,  I  think,  must  ap- 
jx'ar  comj)lute  to  every  impartial  mind,  that  the  Canon 
of  the  Old  Testament  is  settled  upon  the  clearest  his- 
toi-ical  irrounds.  There  seems  to  be  nothing  to  be 
wislicd  for  further  in  the  confirmation  of  this  point. 

IJut  if  all  this  testimony  had  been  wanting,  there  is 
still  a  source  of  evidence  to  which  we  might  refer  with 
the  utmost  confidence,  as  perfectly  conclusive  on  this 
point ;  I  mean  the  fact  that  these  books  have  been 
ever  since  the  time  of  Christ  and  his  apostles  in  the 
keeping  of  both  Jews  and  Christians,  who  have  been 
constantly  arrayed  in  opposition  to  each  other  ;  so  that 
it  was  impossible  th.it  any  change  should  have  been 
made  in  the  Canon,  by  either  party,  without  being 
immediately  detected  by  the  other.  And  the  conclu- 
sive evidence  that  no  alteration  in  the  Canon  has  oc- 
curred is  the  perfect  agreement  of  these  hostile  parties 
in  regard  to  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament  at  this 
time.  On  this  point,  the  Jew  and  Christian  are  har- 
monious.    There  is  no  complaint  of   addition  to,  or 


AGREEMENT  OF  JEWS  AND  CHRISTIANS.  Sfy 

dlmlnntion  of,  tlie  sacred  books  on  either  side.  Tho 
Hebrew  Bible  of  the  Jew  is  the  Bible  of  the  Christian, 
There  is  here  no  difference.  A  learned  Jew  and  u 
Christian  have  even  been  united  in  publishing  an  excel- 
lent edition  of  the  Hebrew  Bible.*  Now,  if  any  alter- 
ation in  the  Canon  has  occurred,  it  must  have  been  by 
the  concert  or  collusion  of  both  parties;  but  how 
absurd  this  idea  is  must  be  manifest  to  all. 

I  acknowledge  what  is  here  said  of  the  agreement 
of  Christians  and  Jews  can  only  be  said  in  relation  to 
Protestant  Christians.     For  as  to  those  of  the  Romish 
and  Greek  communions  they  have  admitted  other  books 
into  the  Canon,  which  Jews  and  Protestants  hold  to 
be  apocryphal;  but  these  books  will  form  the  subjecfc 
of  a  particular  discussion,  in  the  sequel  of  this  work. 
The  fact  is  important,  that  a  short  time  after  the 
Canon  of  the  Old  Testament  was  closed,  a  translation 
was  made  of  the  whole  of  the  books  into  the  Greek 
language.     This  translation  was  made  at  Alexandria, 
in  Egypt,  at  the  request,  it  is  said,  of  Ptolemy  Phila- 
delphus,  king  of  Egypt,  that  he  might  have  a  copy  of 
these  sacred  books  in  the  famo^is  library  which  he  was 
engaged  in   collecting.     It  is  called  the  Septuagint, 
from  its  being  made,  according  to  the  accounts  which 
have  been  handed  down,  by  seventy,  or  rather  seventy- 
two  men ;  six  from  each  of  the  tribes  of  Israel.     So 
many  fabulous  things  have  been  reported  concerning 
this  version,  that  it  is  very  difficult  to  ascertain  the  pre- 
cise truth.     But  it  is  manifest  from  internal  evidence, 
that  it  was  not  the  work  of  one  hand,  nor  probably  of 
one  set  of  translators  :  for,  wdiile  some  books  are  ren- 
dered with  great  accuracy,  and  in  a  very  literal  manner, 
*  See  the  Biblia  Hebraica,  edited  by  Leusden  and  Athias. 


34  THE  SAMARITAN  PENTATEUCH. 

others  are  translated  with  little  care,  and  the  meaning 
of  the  original  is  very  imperfectly  given.  The  proba- 
bility is  that  the  Pentateuch  was  first  translated,  and 
the  other  books  ■were  added  from  time  to  time  by 
different  hands ;  but  when  the  work  was  once  begun, 
it  is  not  likely  that  it  would  be  long  before  the  whole 
was  completed.  Now  this  Greek  version  contains  all 
the  books  which  are  found  in  our  common  Hebrew 
Bibles.  It  is  a  good  witness  therefore  to  prove  that 
all  these  books  were  in  the  Canon  when  this  version 
was  made.  The  apocryphal  books,  which  have  long 
been  connected  with  this  version,  will  furnish  a  subject 
for  consideration  hereafter. 

There  is,  moreover,  a  distinct  and  remarkable  testi- 
mony to  the  antiquity  of  the  five  books  of  Moses  in 
the  Samaritan  Pentateuch,  which  has  existed  in  a  form 
entirely  separate  from  the  Jewish  copies,  and  in  a 
character  totally  different  from  that  in  which  the 
Hebrew  Bible  has  been  for  many  ages  written.  It  has 
also  been  preserved  and  handed  down  to  us  by  a  people 
who  have  ever  been  hostile  to  the  Jews.  This  Penta- 
teuch has,  without  doubt,  been  transmitted  through  a 
separate  channel  ever  since  the  ten  tribes  of  Israel 
were  carried  captive.  It  furnishes  authentic  testimony 
to  tlie  great  antiquity  of  the  books  of  Moses,  and 
shows  how  little  tliey  have  been  corrupted  during  the 
lapse  of  nearly  tliree  tliousand  years.  The  Samaritans 
wci-L'  tlie  people  transplanted  from  other  countries  into 
tlie  places  vacated  by  the  captivity  of  the  ten  tribes  of 
Israel.  At  first,  they  were  all  idolaters ;  but  being 
annoyed  by  wild  beasts,  they  supposed  it  was  because 
tlu'V  knew  not  how  to  worship  the  God  of  the  country. 
They,  therefore,  requested  that  a  priest  should  be  sent 


THE  SAMARITAN  PENTATEUCH.         35 

to  tliem  of  the  Israelitish  nation  to  instruct  tliem. 
Their  request  was  granted ;  and  this  priest,  no  doubt, 
brought  with  him  a  copy  of  the  law.  At  one  time  it 
was  doubted  whether  a  Samaritan  Pentateuch  was  in 
existence,  but  a  learned  man  going  into  Palestine, 
obtained  several  copies.  And  they  have  also  a  trans- 
lation of  the  whole  into  the  Samaritan  language. 
The  Pentateuch,  though  Hebrew,  is  written  in  Sama- 
ritan characters,  which  many  learned  men  think  was 
the  original  Hebrew  character. 


3(J  THE   APOCRYPHA, 


SECTION  HI. 


APOCRYPHAL  BOOKS,  THEIR  ORIGIN — ^IMPORTANCE  OP  DIS- 
T1N(JU1SUING  BETWEEN  CANONICAL  AND  APOCRYPHAL 
BOOKS — SIX  BOOKS  OF  THIS  CLASS  PRONOUNCED  CA- 
NONICAL    BY     THE     COUNCIL     OF     TRENT NOT    IN    THE 

IIKBRKW,    NOR     RECEIVED     BY   THE    JEWS,     ANCIENT    OR 
MODERN. 


The  word  Apocryplia  signifies  concealed,  obscure^ 
without  authority.  In  reference  to  the  Bible,  it  is 
employed  to  designate  such  books  as  claim  a  place  in 
the  sacred  volume,  but  which  are  not  canonical.  It 
is  said  to  have  been  first  used  by  Melito,  bishop  of 
Sardis. 

An  iiKjiiiry  into  this  subject  cannot  be  uninteresting 
to  tlic  iViciids  of  tlic  Bi1)le;  for  it  behoves  them  to 
aseortiiin,  on  the  best  evidence,  what  books  belong  to 
the  sacred  volume,  and  also,  on  what  grounds  other 
books  WW  r('j('ct('(l  from  the  Canon.  This  subject  as- 
Humes  a  higher  importance  from  the  fact,  that  Chris- 
tians are  much  divided  on  this  point;  for,  some  re- 
ceive as  of  e:nioiiic:il  initliority,  books  which  others 
reje(;t  as  spurious,  or  consider  merely  as  human  com- 
positions.    On  such  a  point  every   Christian  should 


THE  APOCRYPHAL  CONTROVERSY.        37 

form  his  opinion  upon  the  best  information  which  he 
can  obtain. 

In  controversy  with  the  Romanists  this  subject 
meets  us  at  the  very  threshold.  It  is  vain  to  dispute 
about  particular  doctrines  of  Scripture  until  it  is  de- 
termined what  books  are  to  be  received  as  Scripture. 

This  subject  gave  rise  to  a  very  unpleasant  contro- 
versy between  the  British  and  Foreign  Bible  Society 
and  some  of  the  leading  ministers  of  Scotland.  The 
principle  adopted  at  the  beginning  by  the  Bible  So- 
ciety Avas,  to  circulate  nothing  but  the  text  of  the 
Holy  Scriptures,  without  note  or  comment.  But 
in  order  to  get  the  Scriptures  into  the  hands  of  the 
Romanists,  Bibles  containing  the  Apocrypha  were 
circulated,  which  proceeding  gave  just  offence  to  the 
ministers  of  the  Church  of  Scotland,  and  to  the  effi- 
cient auxiliaries  of  that  country. 

A  strong  remonstrance  was  therefore  made  to  the 
Managers  of  the  British  and  Foreign  Bible  Society, 
and  their  answer  not  being  entirely  satisfactory,  the 
Scotch  ministers  withdrew^  from  the  Society  in  Lon- 
don, and  established  one  independent  of  the  mother 
Society  ;  and  this  breach  has  never  been  healed.  But 
it  is  due  to  the  British  and  Foreign  Bible  Society  to 
state,  that  in  consequence  of  the  discussion,  they 
adopted  a  correct  principle  for  their  future  proceedings. 
The  whole  subject  was  referred  to  a  select  and 
learned  sub-committee ;  wdio,  after  mature  delibera- 
tion, brought  in  a  report  which  was  adopted,  and  led 
to  the  foUowino;  vvise  resolution  in  the  General  Com- 
mittee,  viz.  "  That  the  funds  of  the  Society  be  ap- 
plied to  the  printing  and  circulation  of  the  canonical 
books  of  Scripture  to  the  exclusion  of  those  books 
4 


38  ArOCRYPIIAL    COXTROVERST. 

•vvlildi  are  termed  apocryphal;  and  that  all  copies 
printed,  either  entirely  or  in  part,  at  the  expense  of 
the  Society,  and  Avhether  such  copies  consist  of  the 
"vvhule  or  of  any  part  of  such  books,  be  invariably  is- 
sued bound,  no  other  book  whatever  being  bound  with 
them ;  and  further,  that  all  money  grants  to  societies 
or  individuals  be  made  only  in  conformity  with  the 
principle  of  this  regulation." 

"  In  the  sacred  volume,  as  it  is  to  be  hereafter 
distributed  by  the  Society,  there  is  to  be  nothing  but 
divine  truth,  nothing  but  what  is  acknowledged  by  all 
Christians  to  be  such.  Of  course  all  may  unite  in  the 
work  of  distribution,  even  should  they  regard  the  vo- 
lume as  containing  but  part  of  the  inspired  writings; 
just  as  they  might  in  the  circulation  of  the  Pentateuch 
or  the  Book  of  Psalms,  or  the  Prophets,  or  the  New 
Testament.  Such  harmonious  operation  would  not, 
however,  be  possible,  if  the  books  of  the  apocrypha 
were  mingled  or  joined  with  the  rest ;  and  besides, 
those  who  have  the  strongest  objection  to  the  apocry- 
pha, are,  ordinarily,  those  who  are  most  forward  in 
active  and  liberal  efforts  to  send  the  word  of  God  to 
all  ftoople." 

This  judicious  decision  of  the  Committee  of  the 
British  and  Foreign  Bible  Society  depends  for  its  cor- 
rectness on  the  supposition  that  the  books  of  the  apo- 
crypha are  not  canonical ;  for,  whatever  may  be  said 
about  circulating  a  part  of  the  Bible,  it  was  undoubt- 
edly the  original  object  of  this  Society  to  print  and 
circiiliitc  the.  irlioJo  of  the  sacred  volume.  Ilcnce 
appcnrs  tlie  practical  importance  of  the  inquiry  which 
we  have   here   instituted,  to  ascertain  whether  these 


THE   APOCRYPHA    CANONIZED    BY   TRENT.  39 

books  have  any  claim  whatever  to  a  place  in  the  sa- 
cred Canon. 

At  a  very  early  period  of  the  Christian  church, 
great  pains  were  taken  to  distinguish  between  such 
books  as  were  inspired  and  canonical,  and  such  as 
w^ere  written  by  uninspired  men.  It  has  never  been 
doubted  among  Christians,  that  the  canonical  books 
only  were  of  divine  authority,  and  furnished,  an  infal- 
lible rule  of  faith  and  practice  ;  but  it  has  not  been 
agreed  what  books  ought  to  be  considered  canonical 
and  what  apocryphal.  In  regard  to  those  which  have 
already  been  enumerated,  as  belonging  to  the  Old 
Testament,  there  is  a  pretty  general  consent  of  Jews 
and  Christians,  of  Romanists  and  Protestants ;  but  in 
regard  to  some  other  books  there  is  a  wide  difference 
of  opinion. 

The  council  of  Trent,  in  their  fourth  session,  gave 
a  catalogue  of  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  among 
"which  are  included  Tohit,  Judith,  Wisdom,  Ucclesi- 
asticus,  Baruch,  and  two  books  of  the  Ifaccabees."^ 
Besides,  they  include  under  the  name  Esther  and 
Daniel,  certain  additional  chapters,  which  are  not 
found  in  the  Hebrew  copies-  The  book  of  Esther  is 
made  to  consist  of  sixteen  chapters  ;  and  prefixed  to 
the  book  of  Daniel,  is  the  History  of  Susannah  ;  the 
Bong  of  the  Three  Children  is  inserted  in  the  third 
chapter ;  and  the  History  of  Bel  and  the  Dragon  is . 
added  at  the  end  of  this  book.  Other  books  which 
are  found  in  the  Greek  or  Latin  Bibles,  they  rejected 
as  apocryphal ;    as   the  third  and  fourth    books    of 

*  See  Note  A. 


40  THE   APOCRYPHA   IN   ENGLISH   BIBLES 


Esdras  f  the  third  book  of  Maccabees  ;  the  cli.  Psalm; 
the  Appendix  to  Job  ;  and  the  Preface  to  Lamenta- 
tions. 

Both  tliese  cksses  of  books,  all  denominations  of 
Protestants  consider  apocryphal ;  but  as  the  English 
church,  in  her  Litur'gy,  directs  that  certain  lessons 
shall  be  read  from  the  former,  for  the  instruction  of 
the  people,  but  not  for  confirmation  of  doctrine,  they 
arc  retained  in  the  larger  copies  of  the  English  Bible, 
but  are  not  mingled  with  the  canonical  books,  as  in 
the  Vulgate,  but  placed  at  the  end  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, under  the  title  of  Apoerypha.  It  is  certainly  to 
be  regretted  that  these  books  are  permitted  to  be  in- 
cluded in  the  same  volume  which  contains  the  lively 
oracles^ — the  tvord  of  G-od, — the  Holy  Scriptures;  all 
of  which  were  given  by  inspiration ;  and  more  to  be 
regretted  still,  that  they  should  be  read  in  the  church 
promiscuously  with  the  lessons  taken  from  the  cano- 
nical books ;  especially  as  no  notice  is  given  to  the 
])eople,  that  what  is  read  from  these  books  is  apocry- 
})li:il ;  and  as  in  the  Prayer  Book  of  the  Episcopal 
cliurch  the  tables  which  refer  to  the  lessons  to  be  read, 

*  Tlio  first  and  second  books  of  Esdras  are  very  frequently 
called  llic  third  and  fourth  ;  in  which  case  the  two  canonical 
books,  Kzra  and  Nehemiah,  are  reckoned  the  first  and  second: 
f»>r  both  these  books  have  been  ascribed  to  Ezra  as  their  author  ; 
but  these  are  not  included  in  the  list  of  canonical  books  sanc- 
tioned by  the  Council  of  Trent,  and  therefore  they  do  not  come 
into  controversy.  Indeed,  the  second  of  these  books  is  not  found 
even  in  the  Greek,  but  only  in  the  Latin  Vulgate,  and  is  so 
rejjlcte  with  fables  and  false  statements  that  it  has  never  been 
esteemed  of  any  value.  They  are  both,  however,  retained  in 
our  lari,'er  English  Bibles,  and  arc  honoured  with  the  foremost 
place  in  the  order  of  the  apocryplial  books. 


NOT    IN    THE    HEEREW.  41 

have  this  title  prefixed — ''Tables  of  lessons  of  Holj 
Scripture  to  be  read  at  Morning  and  Evening  Prayer, 
throughout  the  year."  The  Rev.  Doctor  Wordsworth, 
in  his  work  on  the  Canon,  defends  the  practice  of  re- 
taining in  the  Bible,  and  publicly  reading  in  the  church, 
certain  lessons  from  the  apocryphal  books,  principally 
because  this  was  done  by  the  ancient  church  ;  and  he 
apologizes  for  the  practice  by  saying,  that  these  les- 
sons are  never  read  on  the  Lord's  day.  But  as  he 
acknowledges  that  they  are  not  inspired,  and  are  not 
canonical,  the  inference  is  plain,  that  they  ought  not 
to  be  included  in  the  same  volume  with  canonical 
books,  and  ought  not  to  he  read  as  Scripture  in  tlte 
churches.  Now,  however  good  and  instructive  these 
apocryphal  lessons  may  be,  it  never  can  be  justified, 
that  they  should  thus  be  put  on  a  level  with  the  word 
of  God.* 

But  it  is  our  object  at  present  to  show,  that  none  of 
these  books,  canonized  by  the  Council  of  Trent,  and 
inserted  in  our  larger  English  Bibles,  are  canonical. 
I  1.  The  first  argument  by  which  it  may  be  proved 
that  these  books  do  not  belong  to  the  Canon  of  the 
Old  Testament,  is,  that  they  are  not  found  in  the 
Hebrew  Bible.  They  are  not  written  in  the  Hebrew 
language,  but  in  the  Greek,  which  was  not  known  to 
the  Jews,  until  long  after  inspiration  had  ceased,  and 
the  Canon  of  the  Old  Testament  was  closed.  It  is  ren- 
dered probable,  indeed,  that  some  of  them  were  written 
originally  in  the  Chaldaic.  Jerome  testifies  this  to  be 
the  fact,  in  regard  to  1  llaccabees  and  Ucclesiasticus  ; 

**=  See  Tables  prefixed  to  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer ;  also, 
the  Sixth  Article  of  Religion  of  the  Episcopal  Church. 
4* 


42  REJECTED  BY   TUE   JEWS. 

and  he  says,  that  he  transhited  the  book  of  Tohit  out 
of  Chaklee  into  Latin ;  but  this  book  is  now  found  in 
the  Greek,  and  there  is  good  reason  for  believing  that 
it  was  written  originally  in  this  language.  It  is  cer- 
tain, however,  that  none  of  these  books  were  comj^osed 
in  tlie  pure  Hebrew  of  the  Old  Testament. 

liottinger,  indeed,  informs  us,  that  he  had  seen  the 
whole  of  the  apocrypha  in  pure  Hebrew,  among  the 
Jews ;  but  he  entertains  no  doubt  that  it  was  translated 
into  that  language,  in  modern  times  :  just  as  the  Avhole 
Kew  Testament  has  recently  been  translated  into  pure 
Hebrew. 

It  is  the  common  opinion  of  the  Jews,  and  of  the 
Christian  Fathers,  that  Malaelii  was  the  last  of  the 
Old  Testament  prophets.  Books  written  by  uncertain 
authors  afterwards,  have  no  claim  to  be  reckoned  ca- 
nonical, and  there  is  good  reason  for  believing  that 
those  books  were  written  long  after  the  time  of  Ezra 
and  Malachi,  and  some  of  them  perhaps  later  than  the 
commencement  of  the  Christian  era. 

2.  These  books,  though  probably  written  by  Jews, 
have  never  been  received  into  the  Canon  by  that  peo- 
ple. In  this,  the  ancient  and  modern  Jews  are  of  the 
same  mind.  Josephus  declares,  "  That  no  more  than 
twenty-two  books  were  received  as  inspired  by  his 
nation."  Pliilo,  who  refers  often  to  the  Old  Testa- 
ment in  liis  writings,  never  makes  the  least  mention  of 
tlit-ni ;  nor  are  they  recognized  in  the  Talmud  as  ca- 
noni.-al.  Not  only  so,  but  the  Jewish  Rabbles  expressly 
reject  tlieni. 

llAHBi  AzARiAH,  Speaking  of  these  books,  says, 
"They  arc  received  by  Christians,  not  by  us." 

II.  Gedaliah,  ufler  giving  a  catalogue  of  the  books 


REJECTED  BY  THE  JEWS.  43 

of  the  Old  Testament,  with  some  account  of  their 
authors,  adds  these  words,  "It  is  worthwhile  to  know, 
that  the  nations  of  the  world  wrote  many  other  books, 
which  are  included  in  their  systems  of  sacred  books, 
but  not  in  our  hands."  To  which  he  adds,  "They  say 
that  some  of  these  are  found  in  the  Chaldee,  some  in 
the  Arabic,  and  some  in  the  Greek  language." 

R.  AzAHiAH  ascribed  the  book  called  the  Wisdom 
of  Solomon  to  Philo;  and  R.  Gedaliah,  in  speaking 
of  the  same  book,  says,  "  That  if  Solomon  ever  wrote 
it,  it  must  have  been  in  the  Syriac  language,  to  send 
it  to  some  of  the  kings  in  the  remotest  parts  of  the 
East.  "But,"  says  he,  "Ezra  put  his  hand  only  to 
those  books  which  were  published  by  the  prophets, 
under  the  guidance  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  written  in 
the  sacred  language ;  and  our  wise  men  prudently  and 
deliberately  resolved  to  sanction  none,  but  such  as  were 
established  and  confirmed  by  him." 

"This  book,"-  says  he,  "the  Gentiles  (i.  e.  Chris- 
tians) have  added  to  their  Bible."  "  Their  wise  men," 
says  Buxtorf,  "pronounced  this  book  to  be  apocry- 
phal." 

The  book  called  Ecclesiasticus,  said  to  be  written 
by  the  son  of  Siracii,  is  expressly  numbered  among 
apocryphal  books  in  the  Talmud.  "  In  the  book  of 
the  Son  of  Sirach,  it  is  forbidden  to  be  read." 

Manasseh  Ben  Israel  has  this  observation,  "  Those 
things  which  are  alleged  from  a  verse  in  Ecclesiasticus 
are  nothing  to  the  purpose,  because  that  is  an  apocry- 
phal book."  Another  of  their  writers  says,  "  The 
book  of  the  son  of  Sirach  is  added  to  our  twenty-four 
sacred  books  by  the  Romans."  This  book  also  they 
call  extraneouSj  which  some  of  the  Jews  prohibit  to  be 


44  REJECTED   BY   THE   JEWS. 

read.  Witli  wliat  face  then  can  the  Romanists  pre- 
tend that  this  book  was  added  to  the  Canon  not  long 
before  the  time  of  Josephiis  ? 

"Barucu,"  says  one  of  their  learned  men,  "is  re- 
ceived by  Christians,"  (i.  e.  Romanists,)  "but  not  by  us." 

Of  ToBiT,  it  is  said  in  Zemach  David,  "  Know,  then, 
that  this  book  of  Tobias  is  one  of  those  which  Chris- 
tians join  with  the  Hagiographa."  A  little  afterwards, 
it  is  said,  "  Know  then,  that  Tobit,  which  is  among  us 
in  the  Hebrew  tongue,  was  translated  from  Latin  into 
Ilelu-ew  by  Sebastian  Munster."  The  same  writer 
affirms  of  the  history  of  Susannah,  "  That  it  is  received 
by  Christians  but  not  by  us." 

The  Jews,  in  the  time  of  Jerome,  entertained  no 
other  opinion  of  these  books  than  those  who  came  after 
them ;  for,  in  his  preface  to  Daniel,  he  informs  us, 
"  That  he  had  heard  one  of  the  Jewish  doctors  dcridino; 
tlie  history  of  Susannah,  saying,  '  It  was  invented 
by  some  Greek,  he  knew  not  whom.'  '.'* 

The  same  is  the  opinion  of  the  Jews  respecting  the 
other  books,  which  we  call  apocryphal,  as  is  manifest 
fi-oin  all  the  copies  of  the  Hebrew  Bible  extant;  for, 
undoubtedly  if  they  believed  that  any  of  these  books 
were  canonical,  they  would  give  them  a  place  in  their 
sacred  volume.  But  will  any  ask,  what  is  the  opinion 
cjf  the  Jews  to  us  ?  I  answer,  much  on  this  point. 
The  oracles  of  God  were  committed  to  them;  and  they 
preserved  them  with  a  religious  care  until  the  advent 
of  Messiah.  Christ  never  censures  them  for  adding: 
to  the  sacred  Scriptures,  nor  detracting  from  them. 
SiiH-e  their  nation  has  been  in  dispersion,  copies  of  the 
Old  Testament  in  Hebrew  have  been  scattered  all  over 
♦  ijcc  the  Thesaurus  Philologicus  of  HoUinger. 


NEVER   QUOTED   BY  CHRIST.  45 

the  world,  so  that  it  was  impossible  to  produce  a  uni- 
versal alteration  in  the  Canon.  But  it  is  needless  to 
argue  this  point,  for  it  is  agreed  by  all  that  these  books 
never  were  received  by  the  Jewish  nation. 

3.  The  third  argument  against  the  canonical  autho- 
rity of  these  books  is  derived  from  the  total  silence 
respecting  them  in  the  New  Testament.  They  are 
never  quoted  by  Christ  and  his  apostles.  This  fact, 
however,  is  disputed  by  the  Romanists,  and  they  even 
attempt  to  establish  their  right  to  a  place  in  the  Canon 
from  the  citations  which  they  pretend  have  been  made 
from  these  books  by  the  apostles.  They  refer  to  Rom. 
xi.  and  Heb.  xi.,  where  they  allege  that  Paul  has  cited 
passages  from  the  Book  of  Wisdom.  "  For  who  hath 
known  the  mind  of  the  Lord,  or  who  hath  been  his 
counsellor?"  " For  before  his  translation  he  had  this 
testimony  that  he  pleased  God."  But  both  these  pas- 
sages are  taken  directly  from  the  canonical  books  of 
the  Old  Testament.  The  first  is  nearly  in  the  words 
of  Isaiah ;  and  the  last  from  the  book  of  Genesis ; 
their  other  examples  are  as  wide  of  the  mark  as  these, 
and  need  not  be  set  down. 

It  has  already  been  shown  that  these  books  were  not 
included  in  the  volume  quoted  and  referred  to  by  Christ 
and  his  apostles,  under  the  title  of  the  Scriptures,  and 
and  are  entirely  omitted  by  Josephus  in  his  account  of 
the  sacred  books.  It  would  seem,  therefore,  that  in 
the  time  of  Christ,  and  for  some  time  afterwards,  they 
were  utterly  unknown  or  wholly  disregarded. 


46  THE   APOCRYPHA   DISOWNED. 


SECTION  IV. 

TESTIMONIES  OF  THE  CHRISTIAN  FATHERS,  AND  OF  OTHER 
LEARNED  MEN  DOWN  TO  THE  TIME  OP  THE  COUNCIL  OF 
TRENT,   RESPECTING  THE  APOCRYPHA. 

The  fourth  argument  is,  that  these  books  were  not 
I  received  as  canonical  by  the  Christian  Fathers,  but 
'  were  expressly  declared  to  be  apocryj^hal. 

Justin  Martyr  does  not  cite  a  single  passage,  in 
all  liis  writings,  from  any  apocryphal  book. 

The  first  catalogue  of  the  books  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment -which  we  have,  after  the  times  of  the  apostles, 
from  any  Christian  writer,  is  that  of  Melito,  bishop 
of  Sardis,  before  the  end  of  the  second  century,  which 
is  preserved  by  Eusebius.  The  fragment  is  as  follows : 
*'  Melito  to  his  brother  Onesimus,  greeting.  Since 
you  have  often  earnestly  requested  of  me,  in  conse- 
quence of  your  love  of  learning,  a  collection  of  the 
Sacred  Scriptures  of  the  Law  and  the  Prophets,  and 
wliat  relates  to  the  Saviour,  and  concerning  our  whole 
f;iitli ;  and  since,  moreover,  you  wish  to  obtain  an  accu- 
rate knowledge  of  our  ancient  books,  as  it  respects 
tlu-ir  iiinnhcr  ;ind  order,  I  have  used  diligence  to  ac- 
coiii].lisli  tliis,  knowing  your  sincere  affection  towards 
the  fiiith,  and  your  earnest  desire  to  become  acquainted 
with  the  word;  and  that  striving  after  eternal  life, 
your  love  to  God  induces  you  to  prefer  these  to  all 
other  tilings.     ^Vlierufore,  going  into  the  East,  and  to 


BY   THE    CHRISTIAN   FATHERS.  47 

the  very  place  wliere  these  things  were  published  and 
transacted,  and  having  made  diligent  search  after  the 
books  of  the  Old  Testament,  I  now  subjoin  and  send 
you  the  following  catalogue  : — "  Five  books  of  Moses, 
viz..  Genesis,  Exodus,  Leviticus,  Numbers,  and  Deuter- 
onomy, Joshua,  Judges,  Ruth,  four  books  of  Kings, 
two  of  Chronicles,  the  Psalms  of  David,  the  Pro- 
verbs of  Solomon,  or  Wisdom,*  Ecclesiastes,  the  Song 
of  Songs,  Job,  Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  Twelve  [prophets]  in 
one  book,  Daniel,  Ezekiel,  Ezra."f 

Origen  also  says,  "  We  should  not  be  ignorant,  that 
the  canonical  books  are  the  same  which  the  Hebrews 
delivered  unto  us,  and  are  twenty-two  in  number, 
according  to  the  number  of  letters  of  the  Hebrew 
alphabet."  Then  he  sets  down,  in  order,  the  names 
of  the  books,  in  Greek  and  Hebrew.  J 

Athanasius,  in  his  Synopsis,  says,  ^'  All  the 
Scriptures  of  us  Christians  are  divinely  inspired ; 
neither  are  they  indefinite  in  their  number,  but  deter- 
mined, and  reduced  into  a  Canon.  Those  of  the  Old 
Testament  are.  Genesis,  Exodus,  Leviticus,  Numbers, 

*  Whether  Melito,  in  his  catalogue,  by  the  word  Wisdom, 
meant  to  designate  a  distinct  book  ;  or  whether  it  was  used  as 
another  name  for  Proverbs,  seems  doubtful.  The  latter  has  gene- 
rally been  understood  to  be  the  sense  ;  and  this  accords  with  the 
understanding  of  the  ancients  ;  for  Rufin,  in  his  translation  of 
this  passage  of  Eusebids  renders  napot/xiai  n  aocpia  Salomonis  Pj^o- 
verhia^  quce  est  sapicntia  ;  that  is,  TTie  Proverbs  of  Solomon,  which 
is  Wisdom.  Pineda,  a  learned  Romanist,  says,  "  The  word 
Wisdom  should  here  be  taken  as  explicative  of  the  former,  and 
should  bf  understood  to  mean,  The  Provei^bs." 

t  Euseb.  Hist.  Ecc.  Lib.  v.  c.  24. 

X  Origen's  catalogue  of  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament  is 
presented  by  Eusebius,  in  his  Ecc.  Hist.  Lib.  vi.  c.  25. 


48  THE  APOCRYrnA  disowned 

Joshua,  Judges,  Ruth,  four  books  of  Kings,  Chroni- 
cles, Ezra,  Psalms,  Proverbs,  Ecclesiastes,  Canticles, 
Job,  the  twelve  prophets,  Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  Ezekiel, 
Daniel."* 

IIiLARY,  who  was  contemporary  with  Athanasius, 
and  resided  in  France,  has  numbered  the  canonical 
books  of  the  Old  Testament,  in  the  following  manner : 
*'  The  five  books  of  Moses,  the  sixth  of  Joshua,  the 
seventh  of jJudges,  including  Ruth,  the  eighth  of  first 
and  second  Kings,  the  ninth  of  third  and  fourth 
Kings ;  the  tenth  of  the  Chronicles,  two  books  ;  the 
eleventh,  Ezra  (which  included  Nehemiah ;)  the 
twelfth,  the  Psalms.  Proverbs,  Ecclesiastes,  and  the 
Song  of  Songs,  the  thirteenth,  fourteenth  and  fifteenth ; 
the  twelve  Prophets  the  sixteenth  ;  then  Isaiah  and 
Jeremiali,  including  Lamentations  and  his  Epistle, 
Daniel,  Ezekiel,  Job,  and  Esther,  making  up  the  full 
number  of  twenty-two."  And  in  his  preface  he  adds, 
that  "  these  books  were  thus  numbered  by  our  ances- 
tors, and  handed  down  by  tradition  from  them."f 

Gregory  Nazianzen  exhorts  his  readers  to  study 
the  sacred  books  with  attention,  but  to  avoid  such  as 
•were  apocryplial  ;  and  then  gives  a  list  of  the  books 
of  the  Old  Testament,  and  according  to  theJew- 
isli  method,  makes  the  number  two-and-twenty.  lie 
C(.iii])l;iins  of  some  that  mingled  the  apocryphal 
bc.ks  witli  tliose  that  were  inspired,  "  of  the  truth  of 
Mliicli  last,"  says  lie,  "we  have  the  most  perfect   per- 

*  It  is  a  mallnr  not  agreed  among  the  learned  vvhellicr  the 
"  Synopsis"  which  lias  been  ascribed  to  Athanasius  was  written 
by  him.  It  is,  however,  an  ancient  work,  and  belongs  to  that 
ago. 

f  Pioli'g  ill  Ps.ihnos. 


BY   THE   CHRISTIAN   FATHERS.  49 

suasion  ;  therefore  it  seemed  good  to  me  to  enumerate 
the  canonical  books  from  the  beginning ;  and  those 
which  belong  to  the  Old  Testament  are  two-and- 
twentj,  according  to  the  number  of  the  Hebrew  al- 
phabet, as  I  have  understood."  Then  he  proceeds  to 
say,  ^'  Let  no  one  add  to  these  divine  books,  nor  take 
any  thing  away  from  them.  I  think  it  necessary  to 
add  this,  that  there  are  other  books  besides  those 
which  I  have  enumerated  as  constituting  the  Canon, 
which,  however,  do  not  appertain  to  it ;  but  were  pro- 
posed by  the  early  Fathers,  to  be  read  for  the  sake 
of  the  instruction  which  they  contain."  Then,  he 
expressly  names  as  belonging  to  this  class,  the  Wisdom 
of  Solomon,  the  Wisdom  of  Sirach,  Esther,  Judith, 
and  Tobit.* 

Jerome,  in  his  Epistle  to  Paulinus,  gives  us  a  cata- 
logue of  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  exactly  cor- 
responding with  that  which  Protestants  receive : 
"  Which,"  says  he,  "we  believe  agreeably  to  the  tra- 
dition of  our  ancestors,  to  have  been  inspired  by  the 
Holy  Spirit." 

Epiphanius,  in  his  book  concerning  Weights  and 
Measures,  distributes  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament 
into  four  divisions  of  i&ve  each.  "The  first  of  which 
contains  the  law,  next  five  poetical  books.  Job,  Psalms, 
Proverbs,  Ecclesiastes,  Song  of  Songs  ;  in  the  third 
division  he  places  Joshua,  Judges,  including  Ruth, 
first  and  second  Chronicles,  four  books  of  Kings. 
The  last  five,  the  twelve  prophets,  Isaiah,  Jeremiah, 
Ezekiel,  Daniel.  Then  there  remain  two,  Ezra  and 
Esther."     Thus  he  makes  up  the  number  twenty-two. 

Cyril  of  Jerusalem,  in  his  Catechism,  exhorts  his 
*  Epist.  ad  Theod.  et  Lib.  Carm. 


50  THE    APOCHYrilA   DISOWNED 

CJiteclmmen  diligently  to  learn  from  the  cliurcli,  what 
books  appertain  to  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  and 
he  says,  "  Read  nothing  which  is  apocryphal.  Read 
the  Scriptures,  namely,  the  twenty-two  books  of  the 
Old  Testament,  which  were  translated  by  the  seventy- 
two  interpreters."  And  in  another  place,  "  Meditate, 
as  was  said,  in  the  twenty-two  books  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament, and  if  you  wish  it,  I  will  give  you  their 
names."  Here  follows  a  catalogue,  agreeing  with 
those  already  given,  except  that  he  adds  Baruch  to 
the  list.  When  Baruch  is  mentioned  as  making 
one  book  with  Jeremiah,  as  is  done  by  some  of  the 
Fathers,  it  is  most  reasonable  to  understand  those 
parts  of  Jeremiah,  in  the  writing  of  which  Baruch 
was  concerned,  as  particularly  the  lii.  chapter  ;  for,  if 
we  understand  them  as  referring  to  the  separate  book 
now  called  Baruch,  the  number  which  they  are  so 
careful  to  preserve  will  be  exceeded.  This  apocry- 
phal Baruch  never  existed  in  the  Hebrew,  and  is  never 
mentioned  separately  by  any  ancient  author,  as  Bel- 
larmine  confesses.  This  book  was  originally  written 
in  Greek,  but  our  present  copies  differ  exceedingly 
from  the  old  Latin  translation. 

The  Council  of  Laodicea  forbade  the  reading  of  any 
books  in  the  churches  but  such  as  were  canonical ;  and 
that  the  people  might  know  what  these  were,  a  cata- 
logue was  given,  answering  to  the  Canon  which  we 
now  receive. 

Okk-JEN  barely  mentions  the  Maccabees.  Atha- 
NASius  takes  no  notice  of  these  books.  Eusebius,  in 
his  CluMjiiicon,  speaks  of  the  History  of  the  Macca- 
bees, and  adds,  "  These  books  are  not  received  as  di- 
vine Scriptures." 


BY   THE   CHRISTIAN   FATHERS.  51 

Philastrius,  an  Italian  bishop,  who  lived  in  the 
latter  part  of  the  fourth  century,  in  a  work  on  Heresy 
says,  "  It  was  determined  by  the  apostles  and  their 
successors,  that  nothing  should  be  read  in  the  Catho- 
lic church  but  the  law,  prophets,  evangelists,"  &c. — 
And  he  complains  of  certain  Heretics,  "  That  they 
used  the  book  of  Wisdom,  by  the  son  of  Sirach,  who 
lived  long  after  Solomon." 

Chrysostom,  a  man  who  excelled  in  the  knowledge 
of  the  Scriptures,  declares,  ''  That  all  the  divine  books 
of  the  Old  Testament  were  originally  written  in  the 
Hebrew  tongue,  and  that  no  other  books  were  re- 
ceived." Hom.  4.  in  Gen. 

But  Jerome,  already  mentioned,  who  had  diligently 
studied  the  Hebrew  Scriptures,  by  the  aid  of  the  best 
Jewish  teachers,  enters  into  this  subject  more  fully 
and  accurately  than  any  of  the  rest  of  the  Fathers. 
In  his  general  Preface  to  his  version  of  the  Scrip- 
tures, he  mentions  the  books  which  he  had  translated 
out  of  Hebrew  into  Latin  ;  "All  besides  them,"  says 
he,  "must  be  placed  among  the  apocryphal.  There- 
fore, Wisdom,  which  is  ascribed  to  Solomon,  the  book 
of  Jesus  the  son  of  Sirach,  Judith,  Tobit  and  Pastor, 
are  not  in  the  Canon.  I  have  found  the  first  book  of 
Maccabees  in  Hebrew,  (Chaldee  ;)  the  second  in  Greek, 
and,  as  the  style  shows,  it  must  have  been  com- 
posed in  that  language."  And  in  his  Preface  to  Ezra 
and  Nehemiah,  (always  reckoned  one  book  by  the 
Jews,)  he  says,  "  Let  no  one  be  disturbed  that  I  have 
edited  but  one  book  under  this  name  ;  nor  let  any  one 
please  himself  with  the  dreams  contained  in  the  third 
and  fourth  apocryphal  books  ascribed  to  this  author  ; 


52  THE  ArOCRYPnA  DISOWNED 

for,  with  tlie  Hebrews,  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  make  but 
one  book ;  and  those  things  not  contained  in  this  are 
to  be  rejected,  as  not  belonging  to  the  Canon."  And 
in  his  preface  to  the  books  of  Solomon,  he  speaks  of 
''  Wisdom  and  Ecclesiasticus  ;  the  former  of  which," 
he  says,  "  he  found  in  Hebrew,  (Chaldee,)  but  not  the 
latter,  which  is  never  found  among  the  Hebrews,  but 
the  stjle  strongly  savours  of  the  Grecian  eloquence." 
He  then  adds,  "As  the  church  reads  the  books  of  Ju- 
dith, Tobit,  and  the  Maccabees,  but  does  not  receive 
them  among  the  canonical  Scriptures,  so,  also,  she 
may  read  these  two  books  for  the  edification  of  the 
common  people,  but  not  as  authority  to  confirm  any 
of  tiie  doctrines  of  the  church." 

Again,  in  his  preface  to  Jeremiah,  he  says,  "  The 
book  of  Baruch,  the  scribe  of  Jeremiah,  is  not  read  in 
Hebrew,  nor  esteemed  canonical;  therefore,  I  have 
passed  it  over."  And  in  his  preface  to  Daniel,  "This 
book  among  the  Hebrews  has  neither  the  history  of 
Susanna,  nor  the  Song  of  the  three  Children,  nor  the 
fables  of  Bel  and  the  Dragon,  which  we  have  retained 
lest  we  should  appear  to  the  unskilful  to  have  curtailed 
a  large  part  of  the  Sacred  Volume." 

In  the  preface  to  Tobit,  he  says,  "  The  Hebrews 
cut  off  the  book  of  Tobit  from  the  catalogue  of  Di- 
vine Scriptures."  And  in  his  preface  to  Judith, 
he  says,  "  Among  the  Hebrews,  Judith  is  placed  among 
the  Hagiographa,  which  arc  not  of  authority  to  deter- 
mine controversies." 

KiFix,  in  his  Exposition  of  the  Creed,  observes, 
"That  there  were  some  books  which  were  not  called 
canonical,  but  received  by  our  ancestors,  as  the  Wis- 


BY   THE   CHRISTIAN   FATHERS.  53 

dom  of  Solomon,  and  another  Wisdom  of  the  Son  of 
Sirach ;  of  the  same  order  are  the  books  of  Tobit, 
Judith,  and  the  Maccabees." 

Gregory  the  First,  speaking  of  the  testimony  in 
the  Maccabees,  respecting  the  death  of  Eleazer,  says, 
*'  Concerning  which  thing  we  do  not  act  inordinately, 
although  we  bring  our  testimony  from  a  book  which  is 
not  canonical." 

Augustine  is  the  only  one  among  the  Fathers  who 
lived  within  four  hundred  years  after  the  apostles,  who 
seems  to  favour  the  introduction  of  these  six  disputed 
books  into  the  Canon.  In  his  work  On  Christian  Doc- 
trine, he  gives  a  list  of  the  books  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, among  which  he  inserts  Tobit,  Judith,  the  two 
books  of  Maccabees,  two  of  Esdras,  Wisdom,  and 
Ecclesiasticus.  These  two  last  mentioned,  he  says, 
*'  are  called  Solomon's,  on  account  of  their  resem- 
blance to  his  writings  ;  although  it  is  known  that  one 
of  them  was  composed  by  the  son  of  Sirach  :  which 
deserves  to  be  received  among  the  prophetical  books." 
But  this  opinion  he  retracted  afterwards.* 

Augustine  was  accustomed  to  the  Greek  and  La- 
tin Bibles,  in  which  those  books  had  been  introduced, 
and  we  must  suppose,  unless  we  would  make  him 
contradict  himself,  that  he  meant  in  this  place  merely 
to  enumerate  the  books  then  contained  in  the  sacred 
volume  ;  for  in  many  other  places  he  clearly  shows 
that  he  entertained  the  same  opinion  of  the  books  of 
the  Old  Testament  as  the  other  Fathers. 

In  his  celebrated  work  of  "  The  City  of  God,"  he  ex- 
presses this  opinion  most  explicitly — "  In  that  whole 

*  See  Note  B. 
5* 


64  THE  APOCRYPHA  DISOWNED 

period,  after  the  return  from  the  Babylonish  captivity, 
after  Malachi,  Ilaggai,  Zachariah  and  Ezra,  they  had 
no  prophets,  even  until  the  time  of  the  advent  of  our 
Saviour.  As  our  Lord  says,  the  law  and  the  pro- 
phets were  until  John.  And  even  the  reprobate  Jews 
hold  that  Haggai,  Zachariah,  Ezra,  and  Malachi,  were 
the  last  books  received  into  canonical  authority." 

In  his  commentary  on  the  xl.  Psalm,  he  says,  "If 
any  adversary  should  say  you  have  forged  these  pro- 
pliccics,  let  the  Jewish  books  be  produced — The  Jews 
are  our  librarians."  And  on  the  Ivi.  Psalm,  "  When 
we  wish  to  prove  to  the  Pagans  that  Christ  was  pre- 
dicted, we  appeal  to  the  writings  in  possession  of  the 
Jews ;  they  have  all  these  Scriptures." 

And  again,  in  the  work  first  cited,  "  The  Israelitish 
nation,  to  whom  the  oracles  of  God  were  entrusted, 
never  confounded  false  prophecies  with  the  true,  but 
all  these  writings  are  harmonious."  Then  in  another 
work,  in  speaking  of  the  books  of  the  Maccabees,  he 
says,  "  This  writing  the  Jews  never  received  in  the 
same  manner  as  the  Law,  the  Prophets,  and  the  Psalms, 
to  which  the  Lord  gave  testimony  as  by  his  own  wit- 
nesses." And  frequently  in  his  works,  he  confines  the 
canonical  hooks  to  those  properly  included  in  this  three- 
fukl  division.  lie  also  repeatedly  declares  that  the 
canonical  Scriptures,  which  are  of  most  eminent  autho- 
rity, are  the  books  committed  to  the  Jews.  But  in  tlie 
eighteenth  book  of  the  City  of  God,  speaking  of 
Judith,  he  says,  "Those  things  which  are  written  in 
this  book,  it  is  said,  the  Jews  have  never  received  into 
the  Canon  of  Scripture."  And  in  the  seventeenth 
book  of  tlie  same  work,  "Tlierc  are  three  books  of 
Solomon,  which   have   been   received   into   canonical 


BY  THE  CHEISTIAN  FATHERS.  65 

authority,  Proverbs,  Ecclesiastes,  and  Canticles ;  the 
other  two.  Wisdom  and  Ecclesiasticus,  have  been  called 
by  his  name,  through  a  custom  which  prevailed  on 
account  of  their  similarity  to  his  writings;  but  the 
more  learned  are  certain  that  they  are  not  his ;  and 
they  cannot  be  brought  forward  with  much  confidence 
for  the  conviction  of  gainsay ers." 

He  allows  that  the  Book  of  Wisdom  may  be  read 
to  the  people,  and  ought  to  be  preferred  to  all  other 
tracts;  but  he  does  not  insist  that  the  testimonies 
taken  from  it  are  decisive.  And  respecting  Ecclesias- 
ticus, he  says  when  speaking  of  Samuel's  prophesying 
after  his  death,  "  But  if  this  book  is  objected  to  be- 
cause it  is  not  found  in  the  Canon  of  the  Jews,"  &c. 
His  rejection  of  the  books  of  Maccabees  from  the 
Canon  is  repeated  and  explicit.  "  The  calculation  of 
the  times  after  the  restoring  of  the  temple  is  not  found 
in  the  Holy  Scriptures,  which  are  called  canonical,  but 
in  certain  other  books,  among  which  are  the  two  books 
of  Maccabees.  The  Jews  do  not  receive  the  Macca- 
bees as  the  Law  and  the  Prophets." 

It  may  be  admitted,  however,  that  Augustine 
entertained  too  high  an  opinion  of  these  apocryphal 
books,  but  it  is  certain  that  he  did  not  put  them  on  a 
level  with  the  genuine  canonical  books.  He  mentions 
a  custom  which  prevailed  in  his  time,  from  which  it 
appears  that  although  the  apocryphal  books  were  read 
in  some  of  the  churches,  they  were  not  read  as  Holy 
Scripture,  nor  put  on  a  level  with  the  canonical  books ; 
for  he  informs  us  that  they  were  not  permitted  to  be 
read  from  the  same  desk  as  the  Canonical  Scriptures, 
but  from  a  lower  place  in  the  church. 

Innocent   the    first,   who   lived   about    the   same 


56  TUi;   ArOCRYPHA   DISOWNED 

time,  is  also  alluded  to  as  a  witness  to  prove  that  these 
disputed  books  were  then  received  into  the  Canon. 
But  the  epistle  which  contains  his  catalogue  is  ex- 
tremely suspicious.  No  mention  is  made  of  this  epistle 
by  any  writer  for  three  hundred  years  after  the  death 
of  Inxocext.  But  it  is  noways  necessary  to  our 
argument  to  deny  that  in  the  end  of  the  fourth  and 
beginning  of  the  fifth  century,  some  individuals,  and 
perhaps  some  councils,  received  these  books  as  canon- 
ical, yet  there  is  strong  evidence  that  this  was  not  the 
opinion  of  the  universal  church ;  for  in  the  council 
of  Chalcedon,  which  is  reckoned  to  be  oecumenical,  the 
Canons  of  the  council  of  Laodicea  which  contain  a 
catalogue  of  the  genuine  books  of  the  Old  Testament, 
are  adopted.  And  it  has  been  shown  already  that  these 
apocryphal  books  were  excluded  from  that  catalogue. 

But  it  can  be  proved  that  even  until  the  time  of  the 
meeting  of  the  Council  of  Trent,  by  which  these  books 
were  solemnly  canonized,  the  most  learned  and  judi- 
cious of  the  Popish  writers  adhere  to  the  opinions  of 
Jerome  and  the  ancients ;  or  at  least  make  a  marked 
distinction  between  these  disputed  books  and  those 
wliich  are  acknowledged  to  be  canonical  by  all.  A 
few  testimonies  from  distinguished  writers,  from  the 
commencement  of  the  sixth  century  down  to  the  era 
of  the  Reformation,  shall  now  be  given. 

It  deserves  to  be  particularly  observed  here  that  in 
one  of  the  laws  of  the  Emperor  Justinian,  concerning 
ecclesiastical  matters,  it  was  enacted,  ^'  That  the  Canons 
of  the  first  four  general  councils  should  be  received 
and  have  the  force  of  laws." 

AxASTASius,  patriarch  of  Antioch,  in  a  work  on  the 
Creation,   makes   "  the  number  of  books  which  God 


BY  THE   CHRISTIAN  FATHERS.  57 

hath  appointed  for  his  Old  Testament"  to  be  no  more 
than  twentj-two ;  although  he  speaks  in  very  high 
terms  of  Wisdom  and  Ecclesiasticus. 

Leontius,  a  learned  and  accurate  writer,  in  his 
book  against  the  Sects,  acknowledges  no  other  canoni- 
cal books  of  the  Old  Testament,  but  those  which  the 
Hebrews  received;  namely,  twelve  historical  books, 
five  prophetical,  four  of  Doctrine  and  Instruction,  and 
one  of  Psalms ;  making  the  number  twenty-two  as 
usual ;  and  he  makes  not  the  least  mention  of  any 
others. 

Gregory,  who  lived  at  the  beginning  of  the  seventh 
century,  in  his  book  of  Morals,  makes  an  apology  for 
alleging  a  passage  from  the  Maccabees,  and  says, 
"  Though  it  be  not  taken  from  the  canonical  Scripture, 
yet  it  is  cited  from  a  book  which  was  published  for  the 
edification  of  the  church." 

Isidore,  bishop  of  Seville,  divides  the  canonical 
books  of  the  Old  Testament  into  three  orders,  the 
Law,  the  Prophets,  and  the  Hagiographa ;  and  after- 
wards adds — "There  is  a  fourth  order  of  books  which 
are  not  in  the  Hebrew  Canon  of  the  Old  Testament." 
Here  he  names  these  books,  and  says,  "  Though  the 
Jews  rejected  them  as  apocryphal,  the  church  has  re- 
ceived them  among  the  canonical  Scriptures." 

John  Damascene,  a  Syrian  Presbyter,  who  lived 
early  in  the  eighth  century,  adheres  to  the  Hebrew 
Canon  of  the  Old  Testament,  numbering  only  two-and- 
twenty  books.  Of  Maccabees,  Judith  and  Tobit,  he 
says  not  one  word;  but  he  speaks  of  Wisdom  and 
Ecclesiasticus,  as  "  elegant  and  virtuous  writings,  yet 
not  to  be  numbered  among   the  canonical  books  of 


58  TESTIMONY    OF   LEARNED    MEN. 

Scripture,  never  having  been  laid  up  in  the  ark  of  the 
Covenant." 

Venerable  Bede  follows  the  ancient  method  of 
dividing  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament  into  three 
classes ;  but  he  remarkably  distinguishes  the  Macca- 
bees from  the  canonical  books  by  classing  them  with 
the  writings  of  Josephus  and  Julius  the  African. 

Alcuin,  the  disciple  of  Bede,  says,  "The  book  of 
the  son  of  Sirach  was  reputed  an  apocryphal  and 
dubious  Scripture." 

Rupert,  a  learned  man  of  the  twelfth  century,  ex- 
pressly rejects  the  book  of  Wisdom  from  the  Canon. 

Peter  Mauritius,  after  giving  a  catalogue  of  the 
authentic  Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament,  adds  the 
six  disputed  books,  and  says,  "  They  are  useful  and 
commendable  in  the  church,  but  are  not  to  be  placed 
in  the  same  dignity  with  the  rest." 

Hugo  de  S.  Victore,  a  Saxon  by  birth,  but  who 
resided  at  Paris,  gives  a  catalogue  of  the  books  of  the 
Old  Testament,  which  includes  no  others  but  the  two- 
and-twenty  received  from  the  Jews.  Of  AYisdom, 
Ecclesiasticus,  Tobit  and  Judith,  he  says,  "  They  are 
used  in  the  church  but  not  written  in  the  Canon." 

Kiciiard  de  S.  Victore,  also  of  the  twelfth  cen- 
tury, in  his  Books  of  Collections,  explicitly  declares, 
"  That  tlicre  are  but  twenty-two  books  in  the  Canon  ; 
and  that  Wisdom,  Ecclesiasticus,  Tobit,  Judith,  and 
the  Maccabees,  are  not  esteemed  canonical  although 
they  are  read  in  the  churches." 

Peter  Lombard,  in  his  Scholastic  History,  enume- 
rates the  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  thus — Five  books 
of  Moses,  eiglit  of  the  prophets,  and  nine  of  the  Ha- 
giograi)ha,  whicli  leaves  no  room  for  these  six  disputed 


TESTIMONY   OP   LEARNED   MEN.  69 

looks ;  but  in  his  preface  to  Tobit  he  says  expressly, 
that  it  is  "in  no  order  of  the  Canon ;"  and  of  Judith, 
that  "Jerome  and  the  Hebrews  phice  it  in  the  apocry- 
pha." Moreover,  he  calls  the  story  of  Bel  and  the 
Dragon  a  fable,  and  says  that  the  history  of  Susannah 
is  not  as  true  as  it  should  be. 

In  this  century  also  lived  John  of  Salisbury,  an 
Englishman,  a  man  highly  respected  in  his  time.  In 
one  of  his  Epistles,  he  treats  this  subject  at  large,  and 
professes  to  follow  Jerome  and  undoubtedly  to  believe 
that  there  are  but  twenty-two  books  in  the  Canon  of 
the  Old  Testament,  all  which  he  names  in  order,  and 
adds,  "  That  neither  the  book  of  Wisdom,  nor  Eccle- 
siasticus,  nor  Judith,  nor  Tobit,  nor  the  Pastor,  nor 
the  Maccabees,  are  esteemed  canonical." 

In  the  thirteenth  century,  the  opinion  of  the  learned 
was  the  same,  as  we  may  see  by  the  Ordinary  Ciloss  on 
the  Bible,  in  the  composition  of  which  many  persons 
were  concerned,  and  which  was  high  approved  by  all  the 
doctors  and  pastors  in  the  western  churches.  In  the 
preface  to  this  gloss,  they  are  reproached  with  igno- 
rance w^ho  hold  all  the  books,  put  into  the  one  volume 
of  Scripture,  in  equal  veneration.  The  difference  be- 
tween these  books  is  assorted  to  be  as  great  as  between 
certain  and  doubtful  works.  The  canonical  books  are 
declared,  "To  have  been  written  by  the  inspiration  of 
the  Holy  Ghost;  but  who  were  the  authors  of  the 
others  is  unknown."  Then  it  is  declared,  "That  the 
church  permitteth  the  reading  of  the  apocryphal  books 
for  devotion  and  instruction,  but  not  for  authority  to 
decide  matters  of  controversy  in  faith.  And  that 
there  are  no  more  than  twenty-two  canonical  books  of 
the  Old  Testament,  and  all  besides  are  apocryphal." 


^ 


^  TESTIMONY   OF   LEARNED   MEN. 

Thus  we  have  the  common  judgment  of  the  church,  in 
the  thirteenth  century,  in  direct  opposition  to  the  de- 
cree of  the  Council  of  Trent  in  the  sixteenth.  But 
this  is  not  all,  for  when  the  writers  of  this  Crloss  come 
to  the  apocryphal  books,  they  prefix  a  caution,  as — ■ 
*'  Here  beerins  the  book  of  Tobit,  which  is  not  in  the 
Canon  ;" — "  Here  begins  the  book  of  Judith,  which  is 
not  in  the  Canon,"  and  so  of  everyone  of  them ;  and 
to  confirm  their  opinion,  they  appeal  to  the  Fathers. 

Hugo,  the  Cardinal,  who  lived  in  this  century,  wrote 
commentaries  on  all  the  Scriptures,  which  were  uni- 
versally esteemed  ;  in  these  he  constantly  keeps  up  the 
distinction  between  the  canonical  and  ecclesiastical 
books :  and  he  explicitly  declares  that  "  Ecclesiasticus, 
"Wisdom,  Judith,  Tobit,  and  the  Maccabees,  are  apoc- 
ryphal,— dubious, — not  canonical, — not  received  by  the 
church  for  proving  any  matters  of  faith,  but  for  in- 
formation of  manners." 

Thomas  Aquinas  also,  the  most  famous  of  the  school- 
men, makes  the  same  distinction  between  these  classes 
of  books.  He  maintains  that  the  book  of  Wisdom 
was  not  held  to  be  a  part  of  the  Canon,  and  ascribes 
it  to  Philo.  The  story  of  Bel  and  the  Dragon,  he 
calls  a  fable  ;  and  he  shows  clearly  enough  that  he  did 
not  believe  that  Ecclcsiasticus  was  of  canonical  autho- 
rity. 

Ill  the  fourteenth  century  no  man  acquired  so  exten- 
sive a  reputation  for  his  commentaries  on  the  Bible,  as 
Kicholas  Lyra,  a  converted  Jew.  In  his  preface  to 
the  book  of  Tobit,  he  says,  "  That  having  commented 
on  all  the  canonical  ])ooks,  from  the  beginning  of 
Genesis  to  the  end  of  Revelation,  his  intention  now 
was  to  write  on  those  books  which  are  not  canonical." 


TESTIMONY   OF   LEARNED   MEN.  61 

Here  he  enumerates  Wisdom,  Ecclesiasticus,  Judith, 
Tobit,  and  the  Maccabees;  and  then  adds,  "The  ca- 
nonical books  are  not  only  before  these  in  time  but  in 
dignity  and  authority."  And  again,  "These  are  not 
in  the  Canon,  but  received  by  the  church  to  be  read 
for  instruction  in  manners,  not  to  be  used  for  deciding 
controversies  respecting  the  faith;  whereas  the  others 
are  of  such  authority  that  whatever  they  contain  is  to 
be  held  as  undoubted  truth." 

The  Englishman,  William  Occam,  of  Oxford,  ac- 
counted the  most  learned  doctor  of  his  age,  in  his 
Dialogues,  acknowledges,  "  That  that  honor  is  due  only 
to  the  divine  writers  of  Scripture,  that  we  should  esteem 
them  free  from  all  error."  Moreover,  in  his  Prologues, 
he  fully  assents  to  the  opinion  of  Jerome  and  Gregory, 
"  That  neither  Judith,  nor  Tobit,  nor  the  Maccabees, 
nor  Wisdom,  nor  Ecclesiasticus,  is  to  be  received  into 
the  same  place  of  honour  as  the  inspired  books;  "for," 
says  he,  "  the  church  doth  not  number  them  among 
the  canonical  Scriptures." 

In  the  fifteenth  century,  Thomas  Anglicus,  some- 
times called  the  Angelical  Doctor  on  account  of  his 
excellent  judgment,  numbers  twenty-four  books  of  the 
Old  Testament,  if  Ruth  be  reckoned  separately  from 
Judges,  and  Lamentations  from  Jeremiah. 

Paul  Burgensis,  a  Spanish  Jew,  who,  after  his 
conversion  to  Christianity,  on  account  of  his  superior 
knowledge  and  piety,  was  advanced  to  be  bishop  of 
Burgos,  wrote  notes  on  the  Bible,  in  which  he  retains 
the  same  distinction  of  books  which  has  been  so  often 
mentioned. 

The  Romanists  have  at  last,  as  they  suppose,  found 
an  authority  for  these  disputed  books  in  the  Council 
6 


62  TESTIMONY   OF    LEARNED    MEN. 

of  Florence,  from  the  Acts  of  wliich  they  produce  a 
decree  in  which  the  six  disputed  books  are  named  and 
expressly  said  to  be  written  by  the  inspiration  of  the 
Holy  Ghost. 

Though  this  Canon  were  genuine,  the  authority  of  a 
council  sitting  in  such  circumstances,  as  attended  the 
meeting  of  this,  would  have  very  little  w^eight ;  but  Dr. 
Cosins  has  shown  that  in  the  large  copies  of  the  acts 
of  this  council  no  such  decree  can  be  found,  and  fliat 
it  has  been  foisted  into  the  abridgment  by  some  impos- 
tor who  omitted  something  else  to  make  room  for  it, 
and  thus  preserved  the  number  of  Canons  unchanged, 
while  the  substance  of  them  was  altered. 

Alphonso  Tostatus,  bishop  of  Avila,  who,  on 
account  of  his  extraordinary  learning,  was  called  the 
wonder  of  the  world,  has  given  a  clear  and  decisive 
testimony  on  this  subject.  This  learned  man  declares 
^'  That  these  controverted  books  were  not  canonical, 
and  that  the  church  condemned  no  man  for  disobedi- 
ence who  did  not  receive  them  as  the  other  Scriptures, 
because  they  were  of  uncertain  origin,  and  it  is  not 
known  that  they  were  written  by  inspiration."  And 
again,  "  Because  the  church  is  uncertain  whether 
heretics  have  not  added  to  them."  This  opinion  he 
repeats  in  several  parts  of  his  works." 

Cardinal  XiMi«:xES,  the  celebrated  editor  of  the 
Complutensian  Polyglot,  in  the  prcfiice  to  that  work, 
admonishes  the  reader  that  Judith,  Tobit,  Wisdom, 
Eccleslasticus,  Maccabees,  with  the  additions  to  Esther 
and  Daniel,  which  are  found  in  the  Greek,  are  not 
canonical  Sci-iptures. 

John  Picus,  the  learned  count  of  Mirandula,  ad- 


TESTIMONY   OF   LEARNED    MEN.  63 

hered  firmly  to  the  opinion  of  Jerome  and  the  other 
Fathers  on  the  subject  of  the  Canon. 

Faber  Stapulensis,  a  famous  doctor  of  Paris, 
acknowledges  that  these  books  are  not  in  the  Canon. 

LuDOVicus  YiVES,  one  of  the  most  learned  men  of 
his  age,  in  his  commentaries  on  Augustine's  City  of 
God,  rejects  the  third  and  fourth  books  of  Esdras,  and 
also  the  history  of  Susannah,  and  Bel,  as  apocryphal. 
He  speaks  in  such  a  manner  of  Wisdom  and  Ecclesi- 
asticus  as  to  show  that  he  did  not  esteem  them  canoni- 
cal ;  for  he  makes  Philo  to  be  the  author  of  the  former, 
and  the  son  of  Sirach  of  the  latter,  who  lived  in  the 
time  of  Ptolemy  about  an  hundred  years  after  the  last 
of  the  Prophets ;  and  of  the  Maccabees,  he  doubts 
whether  Josephus  was  the  author  or  not ;  by  which  he 
sufficiently  shows  that  he  did  not  believe  that  they 
were  written  by  inspiration. 

But  there  was  no  man  in  this  age  who  obtained  so 
high  a  reputation  for  learning  and  critical  skill  as 
Erasmus.  In  his  exposition  of  the  Apostles'  Creed 
and  the  Decalogue,  he  discusses  this  question  respect- 
ing the  canonical  books,  and  after  enumerating  the 
usual  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  he  says,  "  The 
ancient  Fathers  admitted  no  more;"  but  of  the  other 
books  afterwards  received  into  ecclesiastical  use, 
(naming  the  whole  which  we  esteem  apocryphal,)  "It 
is  uncertain  what  authority  should  be  allowed  to  them ; 
but  the  canonical  Scriptures  are  such  as  without  con- 
troversy are  believed  to  have  been  written  by  the 
inspiration  of  God."  And  in  his  Scholia  on  Jerome's 
preface  to  Daniel,  he  expresses  his  wonder  that  such 
stories  as  Bel  and  the  Dragon  should  be  publicly  read 
in  the  churches.     In  his  address  to  students  of  the 


64  TESTIMONY   OF   ROMANISTS. 

Scriptures,  he  admonishes  them  to  consider  well, 
"That  the  church  never  intended  to  give  the  same 
authority  to  Tobit,  Judith  and  Wisdom,  which  is  given 
to  the  five  books  of  Moses  or  the  four  Evangelists." 

The  last  testimony  which  we  shall  adduce  to  show 
that  these  books  were  not  universally  nor  commonly 
received,  until  the  very  time  of  the  Council  of  Trent, 
is  that  of  Cardinal  Cajetan,  the  oracle  of  the  church 
of  Rome.  In  his  commentaries  on  the  Bible,  he  gives 
us  this  as  the  rule  of  the  church — ^'  That  those  books 
which  were  canonical  with  Jerome  should  be  so  with 
us  ;  and  that  those  which  were  not  received  as  canoni- 
cal by  him  should  be  considered  as  excluded  by  us." 
And  he  says,  "  The  church  is  much  indebted  to  this 
Father  for  distinguishing  between  the  books  which  are 
canonical  and  those  which  are  not,  for  thus  he  has 
freed  us  from  the  reproach  of  the  Hebrews,  who  other- 
wise might  say  that  we  had  framed  a  new  Canon  for 
ourselves."  For  this  reason  he  would  write  no  com- 
mentaries on  these  apocryphal  books  ;  "  for,"  says  he, 
"Judith,  Tobit,  Maccabees,  Wisdom,  and  the  additions 
to  Esther  are  all  excluded  from  the  Canon  as  insuffi- 
cient to  prove  any  matter  of  faith,  though  they  may 
be  read  for  the  edifying  of  the  people." 

From  the  copious  citations  of  testimonies  which  we 
have  given,  it  is  evident  that  the  books  in  dispute  are 
apocryphal,  and  have  no  right  to  a  place  in  the  Canon  ; 
and  that  the  Council  of  Trent  acted  unwisely  in  de- 
creeing, with  an  anathema  annexed,  that  they  should 
be  received  as  divine.  Surely  no  council  can  make 
that  an  inspired  book  which  was  not  written  by  inspi- 
ration. Certainly  these  books  did  not  belong  to  the 
Canon  while  the  apostles  lived,  for  they  were  unknown 


TESTIMONY   OF   ROMANISTS.  65 

both  to  Jews  and  Christians.  SiXTUs  Sinensis,  a 
distinguished  Romanist,  acknowledges  that  it  was  long 
after  the  time  of  the  apostles,  that  these  writings  came 
to  the  knowledge  of  the  whole  Christian  church.  But 
while  this  is  conceded,  it  does  not  terminate  the  con- 
troversy, for  among  the  many  extraordinary  claims  of 
the  Romish  church,  one  of  the  most  extraordinary  is 
the  authority  to  add  to  the  Canon  of  Holy  Scripture. 
It  has  been  made  sufficiently  manifest  that  these  apoc- 
ryphal books  were  not  included  in  the  Canon  during 
the  first  three  centuries  ;  and  can  it  be  doubted  whether 
the  Canon  was  fully  constituted  before  the  fourth  cen- 
tury ?  To  suppose  that  a  Pope  or  a  Council  cftn  make 
what  books  they  please  canonical,  is  too  absurd  to  de- 
serve a  moment's  consideration.  If,  upon  this  princi- 
ple, they  could  render  Tobit  and  Judith  canonical, 
upon  the  same  they  might  introduce  Herodotus,  Livy, 
or  even  the  Koran  itself. 


6* 


CO   I^■TERNAL   EVIDENCE   AGAINST  THE  APOCRYPHA. 


SECTION  V. 


INTERNAL  EVIDENCE  THAT  THESE  BOOKS  ARE  NOT  CANONI- 
CAL— THE  WRITERS   NOT  PROPHETS,  AND   DO  NOT  CLAIM 


TO    BE   INSPIRED. 


I  COME  now  to  the  fifth  argumeiit  to  disprove  the 
canonical  authority  of  these  books,  which  is  derived 
from  internal  evidence.  Books  which  contain  mani- 
fest falsehoods  ;  or  which  abound  in  silly  and  ridiculous 
stories ;  or  contradict  the  plain  and  uniform  doctrine 
of  acknowledged  Scripture,  cannot  be  canonical.  Now 
I  will  endeavour  to  show,  that  the  books  in  dispute, 
are  all,  or  most  of  them,  condemned  by  this  rule. 

In  the  book  of  Tobit,  an  angel  of  God  is  made  to 
tell  a  palpable  falsehood — "  I  am  Azarias,  the  son  of 
Ananias  the  great,  and  of  thy  brethren  ;"*  by  which 
Tobit  was  completely  deceived,  for  he  says,  "  Thou  art 
of  an  honest  and  good  stock."  Now  in  chapter  xii. 
tills  same  angel  declares,  "I  am  Raphael,  one  of  the 
seven  Holy  Angels,  which  present  the  prayers  of  the 
saints,  and  go  in  and  out  before  the  glory  of  the  Holy 
One." 

Judith  is  represented  as  speaking  scarcely  an^^thing 
but  falscliood  to  llolofernes;  but  what  is  most  incon- 
gisteiit  Nvith  tlic  cliaracter  of  piety  given  her,  is,  that 
she  is  made  to  pray  to  the  God  of  truth,  in  the  following 

♦  Tubil  V.  1'^,  13. 


INTERNAL  EVIDENCE  AGAINST  THE  APOCRYPHA.  67 

words,  "  Smite  bj  the  deceit  of  my  lips,  the  servant 
with  the  prince,  and  the  prince  with  the  servant." 
Who  does  not  perceive,  at  once,  the  impiety  of  this 
prayer  ?  It  is  a  petition  that  he  who  holds  in  utter 
detestation  all  falsehood,  should  give  eflScacy  to  pre- 
meditated deceit.  This  woman,  so  celebrated  for  her 
piety,  is  also  made  to  speak  with  commendation  of 
the  conduct  of  Simeon,  in  the  cruel  slaughter  of  the 
Shechemites;  an  act,  against  which  God,  in  the 
Scriptures,  has  expressed  his  high  displeasure. 

In  the  second  book  of  Maccabees,  Razis,  an  elder 
of  Jerusalem,  is  spoken  of  with  high  commendation, 
for  destroying  his  own  life,  rather  than  fall  into  the 
hands  of  his  enemies ;  but,  certainly,  suicide  is  not, 
in  any  case,  agreeable  to  the  word  of  God. 

The  author  of  the  book  of  Wisdom,  speaks  in  the 
name  of  Solomon,  and  talks  about  being  appointed  to 
build  a  temple  in  the  holy  mountain ;  whereas  it  has 
been  proved  by  Jerome,  that  this  book  is  falsely 
ascribed  to  Solomon. 

In  the  book  of  Tobit,  we  have  this  story:  ^'And  as 
they  went  on  their  journey  they  came  to  the  river 
Tigris,  and  they  lodged  there ;  and  when  the  young 
man  went  down  to  wash  himself,  a  fish  leaped  out  of 
the  river,  and  would  have  devoured  him.  Then  the 
angel  said  unto  him.  Take  the  fish.  And  the  young 
man  laid  hold  of  the  fish  and  drew  it  to  land.  To 
whom  the  angel  said.  Open  the  fish,  and  take  the  heart, 
and  the  liver,  and  the  gall,  and  put  them  up  safely. 
So  the  young  man  did  as  the  angel  commanded  him, 
and  when  they  had  roasted  the  fish,  they  did  eat  it. 
Then  the  young  man  said  unto  the  angel.  Brother 
Azarias,  to  what  use  is  the  heart,  and  the  liver,  and  the 


G8    INTERNAL  EVIDENCE  AGAINST  THE  APOCRYPHA. 

gall  of  the  fish  ?  And  he  said  unto  him,  Touching  the 
lieart  and  the  liver,  if  a  devil,  or  an  evil  spirit  trouble 
anv,  'vve  must  make  a  smoke  thereof  before  the  man 
or  the  woman,  and  the  party  shall  be  no  more  vexed. 
As  for  the  gall,  it  is  good  to  anoint  a  man  that  hath 
whiteness  in  his  eyes  ;  and  he  shall  be  healed."*  If  this 
story  does  not  savour  of  the  fabulous,  then  it  would  be 
difficult  to  find  anything  that  did. 

In  the  book  of  Baruch,  there  are  also  several 
things  which  do  not  appear  to  be  true.  Baruch  is 
said  to  have  read  this  book,  in  the  fifth  year  after 
the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  in  the  ears  of  the 
king,  and  all  the  people  dwelling  in  Babylon,  who 
upon  hearing  it,  collected  money  and  sent  it  to  Jeru- 
salem, to  the  priests,  t  Now  Baruch,  who  is  here 
alleged  to  have  read  this  book  in  Babylon,  is  said,  in  the 
canonical  Scriptures,  to  have  been  carried  captive  into 
Egypt,  with  Jeremiah,  after  the  murder  of  Gedaliah. 
Jer.  xliii.  6.  Again,  he  is  represented  to  have  read  in 
the  ears  of  Jeconias  the  king,  and  of  all  the  people  ;  but 
Jeconias  is  known  to  have  been  shut  up  in  prison,  at 
this  time,  and  it  is  nowise  probable  that  Baruch  would 
have  access  to  him,  if  he  even  had  been  in  Babylon. 
The  money  that  was  sent  from  Babylon  was  to  enable 
the  priests  to  offer  sacrifices  to  the  Lord,  but  the  tem- 
ple was  in  ruins,  and  there  was  no  altar.J 

In  the  chapters  added  to  the  book  of  Esther,  Ave 
read,  that  "  Mardocheus,  in  the  second  year  of  Ar- 
taxerxes  the  Great,  was  a  great  man,  being  a  servitor 

*  Tobit  c.  vi.  f  Baruch  i.  1—6. 

I  liaruch  i.  10.  "  And  they  said,  Behold  we  have  sent  you 
money  to  buy  you  burnt-ofierings,  and  sin-offerings,  and  incense, 
and  prepare  yc  manna,  and  offer  upon  the  altar  of  the  Lord  our 
God." 


INTERNAL  EVIDENCE  AGAINST  THE  APOCRYPHA.  69 

in  the  king's  court."  And  in  the  same,  "  That  he  was 
also  one  of  the  captives  which  Nabuchodonosor  carried 
from  Jerusalem,  with  Jeconias,  king  of  Judea."  Now, 
between  these  two  periods,  there  intervened  one  hun- 
dred and  fifty  years ;  so  that,  if  he  was  only  fifteen 
years  of  age,  when  carried  away,  he  must  have  been 
a  servitor  in  the  king's  court,  at  the  age  of  one  hun- 
dred and  seventy-five  years  ! 

Again,  Mardocheus  is  represented  as  being  "  a  great 
man  in  the  court,  in  the  second  year  of  Artaxerxes,'* 
before  he  detected  the  conspiracy  against  the  king's 
life.  Now,  Artaxerxes  and  Ahasuerus  were  the  same, 
or  they  were  not ;  if  the  former,  this  history  clashes 
with  the  Scriptural  account,  for  there  it  appears,  that 
Mordecai  w^as  not,  before  this  time,  a  courtier,  or  a 
conspicuous  man ;  if  the  latter,  then  this  addition  is 
manifestly  false,  because  it  ascribes  to  Artaxerxes, 
what  the  Scriptures  ascribe  to  another  person. 

Moreover,  this  apocryphal  writing  places  the  con- 
spiracy against  the  king's  life  before  the  repudiation 
of  Vashti  and  the  marriage  of  Esther;  but  this  is 
repugnant  to  the  canonical  Scriptures. 

It  is  also  asserted,  in  this  book,  (see  chap,  xvi.)  that 
Mardocheus  received  honours  and  rewards  for  the 
detection  of  the  conspiracy ;  whereas,  in  the  Canonical 
book  of  Esther,  it  is  declared,  that  he  received  no  re- 
ward. And  a  difi'erent  reason  is  assigned,  in  the  two 
books,  for  Haman's  hatred  of  Mordecai.  In  the 
canonical,  it  is  his  neglect  of  showing  respect  to  this 
proud  courtier ;  in  the  apocryphal,  it  is  the  punish- 
ment of  the  two  eunuchs,  who  had  formed  the  con- 
spiracy. 

And  finally,  Haman,  in  this  spurious  work,  is  called 


70  INTERNAL  EVIDENCE  AGAINST  THE  APOCRTPHA. 

a  Macedonian  ;  and  it  is  said,  that  he  meditated  the 
design  of  transferring  the  Persian  kingdom  to  the 
Macedonians.  But  this  is  utterly  incredible.  The 
kingdom  of  Macedon  must  have  been,  at  that  time, 
most  obscure,  and  probably  wholly  unknown,  at  the 
Persian  court.  But  this  is  not  all :  he  who  is  here 
called  a  Macedonian,  is  in  the  canonical  book  said  to 
be  an  Agagite.  The  proof  of  the  apocryphal  charac- 
ter of  this  addition  to  Esther,  wdiich  has  been  adduced, 
is  in  all  reason  sufficient. 

The  advocates  of  these  books  are  greatly  perplexed 
to  find  a  place  in  the  history  of  the  Jewish  nation,  for 
the  wonderful  deliverance  wrought  by  means  of  Judith. 
It  seems  strange  that  no  allusion  is  made  to  this  event 
in  any  of  the  acknowledged  books  of  Scripture ;  and 
more  unaccountable  still,  that  Josephus,  who  was  so 
much  disposed  to  relate  everything  favourable  to  the 
character  of  his  nation,  should  never  make  the  least 
mention  of  it.  Some  refer  this  history  to  the  period 
preceding  the  Babylonish  captivity ;  while  others  are 
of  opinion,  that  the  events  occurred  in  the  time  of 
Cambyscs,  king  of  Persia.  But  the  name  of  the  high 
priest  here  mentioned,  does  not  occur  with  the  names 
of  the  high  priests  contained  in  any  of  the  genealogies. 
From  tlic  time  of  the  building  of  the  temple  of  Solomon, 
to  its  ovcrtlirow  by  the  Assyrians,  this  name  is  not 
f<»ini(l  in  the  list  of  liigh  priests,  as  may  be  seen  by 
consulting  the  vi.  chapter  of  1  Chronicles ;  nor,  in  the 
catalogue  given  hy  Josephus,  in  the  tenth  chapter 
of  the  tenth  book  of  his  Antiquities.  That  this  history 
cannot  be  placed  after  the  captivity,  is  manifest,  from 
this  circumstance,  that  the  temple  of  Solomon  was  still 


INTERNAL  EVIDENCE  AGAINST  THE  APOCRYPHA,  i  1 

Standing  when  the  transactions  which  are  related  in 
this  book  occurred. 

Another  thing  in  the  book  of  Judith,  which  is  very 
suspicious,  is,  that  Holofernes  is  represented  as  saying, 
*'  Tell  me  now,  ye  sons  of  Canaan,  who  this  people 
is,  that  dwelleth  in  the  hill  country,  and  what  are  the 
cities  that  they  inhabit."  But  how  can  it  be  reconciled 
with  known  history,  that  a  prince  of  Persia  should  be 
wholly  ignorant  of  the  Jewish  people  ? 

It  is  impossible  to  reconcile  what  is  said,  in  the  close 
of  the  book,  with  any  sound  principles  of  chronology. 
Judith  is  represented  as  young  and  beautiful,  when 
she  slew  Holofernes ;  but  here  it  is  said,  ^'  That  she 
waxed  old  in  her  husband's  house,  being  an  hundred 
and  five  years  old.  And  there  was  none  that  made 
the  children  of  Israel  any  more  afraid,  in  the  days  of 
Judith  nor  a  long  time  after  her  death."  In  whose 
reign,  or  at  what  period,  we  would  ask,  did  the  Jews 
enjoy  this  long  season  of  uninterrupted  tranquillity  ? 

Some  WTiters  who  are  fully  convinced  that  the  his- 
tory of  Judith  cannot  be  reconciled  with  authentic 
history,  if  taken  literally,  are  of  opinion,  that  it  contains 
a  beautiful  allegory ; — that  Bethulia,  (tJie  vi7'gin,) 
represents  the  church  of  God ;  that  the  assault  of 
Nebuchadnezzar  signifies  the  opposition  of  the  world 
and  its  prince ;  that  the  victory  obtained  by  a  pious 
woman,  is  intended  to  teach,  that  the  church's  deli- 
verance is  not  effected  by  human  might  or  power,  but 
by  the  prayers  and  the  piety  of  the  saints,  &c.  This, 
perhaps,  is  the  most  favourable  view  which  we  can 
take  of  this  history  :  but  take  it  as  you  will,  it  is  clear 
that  the  book  is  apocryphal,  and  has  no  right  to  a  place 
in  the  sacred  Canon. 


72    INTERNAL  EVIDENCE  AGAINST  THE  APOCRYPHA. 

Between  the  first  and  second  books  of  Maccabees, 
there  is  a  palpable  contradiction  ;  for  in  the  first  book 
it  is  said,  that  "  Judas  died  in  the  one  hundred  and 
fifty-second  year  :"  but  in  the  second,  "  that  in  the  one 
hundred  and  eighty-eighth  year,  the  people  that  were 
in  Judea,  and  Judas,  and  the  council,  sent  greeting 
and  health  unto  Aristobulus."  Thus,  Judas  is  made 
to  join  in  sending  a  letter,  six-and-thirty  years  after  his 
death  !  The  contradiction  is  manifest.  In  the  same 
first  chapter  of  the  second  book,  there  is  a  story  inserted 
which  has  very  much  the  air  of  a  fable.  "  For  when 
our  fathers  were  led  into  Persia,  the  priests  that  were 
then  devout,  took  the  fire  of  the  altar  privily  and  hid 
it  in  a  hollow  place  of  a  pit  without  water,  where  they 
kept  it  sure,  so  that  the  place  was  unknown  to  all  men. 
Kow  after  many  years,  when  it  pleased  God,  Nehe- 
mias,  being  sent  from  the  king  of  Persia,  did  send  of 
the  posterity  of  those  priests  that  had  hid  it,  to  the  fire : 
but  when  they  told  us  they  found  no  fire,  but  thick 
water,  then  commanded  he  them  to  draw  it  up  and 
bring  it,  and  when  the  sacrifice  was  laid  on,  Nehemias 
commanded  the  priests  to  sprinkle  the  wood  and  things 
laid  thereon,  with  the  water.  When  this  was  done 
and  the  time  came  that  the  sun  shone,  which  before 
was  hid  in  the  clouds,  a  great  fire  was  kindled."  2 
Mac.  ix.  But  the  Jews  were  not  carried  to  Persia  but 
to  Babylon,  and  the  rest  of  the  story  has  no  founda- 
tion, whatever,  in  truth. 

In  the  second  chapter  we  have  another  fabulous 
Btory  of  Jeremiah's  taking  the  ark  and  altar,  and  altar 
of  incense,  to  mount  Pisgah,  and  hiding  them  in  a 
hollow  cave,  and  closing  them  up.  This  place  Jere- 
miah declared  should   be    unknown,  "until  the  time 


INTERNAL  EVIDENCE  AGAINST  THE  APOCRYPHA.  73 

that  God  gathered  his  people  again  together,  and  re- 
ceived them  into  mercy ;  when  the  cloud  as  it  ap- 
peared unto  Moses,  should  appear  again."  1  Mac. 
viii.  16. 

There  is  another  contradiction  between  these  books 
of  Maccabees,  in  relation  to  the  death  of  Antiochus 
Epiphanes.  In  the  first,  it  is  said,  that  he  died  at 
Elymais,  in  Persia,  in  the  hundred  and  forty-ninth 
year ;  but,  in  the  second  book,  it  is  related,  that  after 
entering  Persepolis,  with  a  view  of  overthrowing  the 
temple  and  city,  he  was  repulsed  by  the  inhabitants ; 
and  while  on  his  journey  from  this  place,  he  was 
seized  with  a  dreadful  disease  of  the  bowels,  and  died 
in  the  mountains.  1  Mac.  vi. ;  2  Mac.  ix. 

Moreover,  the  accounts  given  of  Nicanor,  in  the 
seventh  chapter  of  the  first  book,  and  in  the  fourteenth 
and  fifteenth  chapters  of  the  second  book,  are  totally 
inconsistent. 

In  the  first  book  of  Maccabees  an  erroneous  account 
is  given  of  the  civil  government  of  the  Romans,  where 
it  is  said,  "  That  they  committed  their  government  to 
one  man  every  year,  who  ruled  over  all  their  country, 
and  that  all  were  obedient  to  that  one."  Whereas,  it 
is  well  known,  that  no  such  form  of  government  ever 
existed  among  the  Romans. 

Finally,  it  is  manifest  that  these  books  were  not 
inspired,  and  therefore  not  canonical,  because  they 
were  not  written  by  prophets ;  but  by  men  who  speak 
of  their  labours  in  a  way  wholly  incompatible  with  in- 
spiration. 

Jerome  and  Eusebius  were  of  opinion,  that  Josephus 
w^as  the  author  of  the  books  of  the  Maccabees ;  but  it 
has  never  been  supposed  by  any,  that  he  was  an  in- 
7 


74  THE   APOCRYPHA   NOT  WRITTEN 

spired  man  ;  therefore,  if  this  opinion  be  correct,  these 
books  are  no  more  canonical,  than  the  Antiquities,  or 
Wars  of  the  Jews,  by  the  same  author. 

It  has  been  the  constant  tradition  of  Jews  and 
Christians,  that  the  spirit  of  prophecy  ceased  with 
]\Iahichi,  until  the  appearance  of  John  the  Baptist. 
Malachi  has,  on  this  account,  been  called  by  the  Jews, 
*'  the  seal  of  the  prophets." 

Josephus,  in  his  book  against  Apion,  after  saying 
that  it  belonged  to  the  prophets  alone,  to  write  inspired 
books,  adds  these  words,  "From  the  time  of  Artax- 
erxes,  there  were  some  among  us,  who  wrote  books 
even  to  our  own  times,  but  these  are  not  of  equal 
authority  with  the  preceding,  because  the  succession 
of  prophets  was  not  complete." 

EusEBius,  in  giving  a  catalogue  of  the  leaders  of  the 
Jews,  denies  that  he  can  proceed  any  lower  than 
Zerubbabel,  "Because,"  says  he,  "after  the  return 
from  captivity  until  the  advent  of  our  Saviour,  there 
is  no  book  which  can  be  esteemed  sacred." 

Augustine  gives  a  similar  testimony.  "  After  Mala- 
chi the  Jews  had  no  prophet,  during  that  whole  period, 
which  intervened  between  the  return  from  captivity 
and  the  advent  of  our  Saviour." 

Neither  does  Genebrard  dissent  from  this  opinion. 
"From  Mivlachi  to  John  the  Baptist,"  says  he,  "no 
prophets  existed." 

Drusius  cites  the  following  words,  from  the  Com- 
piler of  the  Jewish  History,  "  The  rest  of  the  discourses 
of  Simon  and  his  wars,  and  the  wars  of  his  brother, 
are  they  not  written  in  the  book  of  Joseph,  the  son 
of  Gorion,  and  in  the  book  of  the  Asmoneans,  and  in 
the  books  of  the  Roman  kings?"     Here  the  books  of 


BY   INSPIRED    MEN.  75 

the  Maccabees  are  placed   between  the  writings   of 
Josephus  and  the  Roman  history. 

The  book  of  Wisdom  does  indeed  claim  to  be  the 
work  of  Solomon,   an  inspired  man ;  but  this  claim 
furnishes  the  strongest  ground  for  its  condemnation. 
It  is  capable  of  the  clearest  proof  from  internal  evi- 
dence, that  this  was  the  production  of  some  person, 
probably  a  Hellenistic  Jew,  who  lived  long  after  the 
Canon  of  the  Old  Testament  was  completed.     It  con- 
tains manifest  allusions  to   Grecian  customs,   and  is 
tinctured  with  the  Grecian  philosophy.     The  manner 
in  which  the  author  praises  himself  is  fulsome,  and 
has  no  parallel  in  an  inspired  writer.     This  book  has 
been  ascribed  to  Philo  Judaeus ;  and  if  this  conjecture  be 
correct,  doubtless  it  has  no  just  claim  to  be  considered 
a  canonical  book.     But  whoever  was  the  author,  his 
endeavouring  to  pass  his  composition  off  for  the  writ- 
ing of  Solomon,  is  sufficient  to  decide  every  question 
respecting  his  inspiration.     If  Solomon  had  written 
this  book,  it  would  have  been  found  in  the  Jewish 
Canon,  and  in  the  Hebrew  language.     The  writer  is 
also  guilty  of  shameful  flattery  to  his  own  nation,  which 
is  entirely  repugnant  to  the  spirit  of  all  the  prophets. 
He  has  also,  without    any  foundation,  added   many 
things  to  the  sacred  narration,  contained  in  the  canoni- 
cal history ;  and  has  mingled  with  it  much  which  is  of 
the  nature  of  poetical  embellishment.     And,  indeed, 
the  whole  style  of  the  composition  savours  too  much 
of  artificial  eloquence,  to  be  attributed  to  the  Spirit 
of  God ;  the  constant  characteristic  of  v/hose  produc- 
tions is,  simplicity  and  sublimity. 

Ecclesiasticus,   which  is  superior  to   all  the  other 
apocryphal  books,  was  written  by  one  Jesus  the  son 


76  THE   ArOCRYPHA   NOT   WRITTEN 

of  Sirach.  His  grandfather,  of  the  same  name,  it 
seems,  had  written  a  book,  which  he  left  to  his  son 
Sirach ;  and  he  delivered  it  to  his  son  Jesus,  who  took 
great  pains  to  reduce  it  into  order ;  but  he  no  where 
assumes  the  character  of  a  prophet  himself,  nor  does 
he  claim  it  for  the  original  author,  his  grandfather. 
In  the  prologue,  he  says.  "  Mj  grandfather,  Jesus, 
when  he  had  much  given  himself  to  the  reading  of  the 
law  and  the  prophets,  and  other  books  of  our  fathers, 
and  had  gotten  therein  good  judgment,  was  drawn  on 
also  himself  to  write  something  pertaining  to  learning 
and  wisdom,  to  the  intent  that  those  which  are  desir- 
ous to  learn,  and  are  addicted  to  these  things,  might 
profit  much  more,  in  living  according  to  the  law. 
Wherefore  let  me  entreat  you  to  read  it  with  favour 
and  attention,  and  to  pardon  us  wherein  we  may  seem 
to  come  short  of  some  words  which  we  have  laboured 
to  interpret.  For  the  same  things  uttered  in  Hebrew, 
and  translated  into  another  tongue,  have  not  the  same 
force  in  them.  For  in  the  eight-and-thirtieth  year, 
coming  into  Egypt  Avhen  Euergetes  was  king,  and 
continuing  there  for  some  time,  I  found  a  book  of  no 
small  learning :  therefore  I  thought  it  most  necessary 
for  nie  to  bestow  some  diligence  and  travail  to  inter- 
pret it ;  using  great  watchfulness,  and  skill,  in  that 
space,  to  bring  the  book  to  an  end,"  &c.  Surely 
there  is  no  need  of  further  arguments  to  prove  that 
this  modest  author  did  not  claim  to  be  inspired. 

The  author  of  the  second  book  of  the  Maccabees  pro- 
fesses to  have  reduced  a  work  of  Jason  of  Cyrene,  con- 
sisting of  five  volumes,  into  one  volume.  Concerning 
which  work,  he  says,  "therefore  to  us  that  have 
taken  upon  us  this  painful  labour  of  abridging,  it  was 


BY   INSPIRED    MEN.  77 

not  easy,  but  a  matter  of  sweat  and  watching."  Again, 
"  leaving  to  the  author  the  exact  handling  of  every 
particular,  and  labouring  to  follow  the  rules  of  an 
abridgment — to  stand  upon  every  point,  and  go  over 
things  at  large,  and  to  be  curious  in  particulars, 
belongeth  to  the  first  author  of  the  story;  but  to  use 
brevity,  and  avoid  much  labouring  of  the  work,  is  to 
be  granted  to  him  that  maketh  an  abridgment."  Is 
any  thing  more  needed  to  prove  that  this  writer  did 
not  profess  to  be  inspired  ?  If  there  was  any  inspira- 
tion in  the  case,  it  must  be  attributed  to  Jason  of 
Cyrene,  the  original  writer  of  the  history ; — but  his 
work  is  long  since  lost,  and  we  now  possess  only  the 
abridgment  which  cost  the  writer  so  much  labour  and 
pains.  Thus,  I  think  it  sufiiciently  appears,  that  the 
authors  of  these  disputed  books  were  not  prophets ; 
and  that,  as  far  as  we  can  ascertain  the  circumstances 
in  which  they  wrote,  they  did  not  lay  claim  to  inspira- 
tion, but  expressed  themselves  in  such  a  way,  as  no 
man  under  the  influence  of  inspiration  ever  did. 

The  Popish  writers,  to  evade  the  force  of  the  argu- 
ments of  their  adversaries,  pretend  that  there  was  a 
two-fold  Canon;  that  some  of  the  books  of  Scripture 
SiYQ  proto-canonical ;  and  others  deutero-canonical.  If, 
by  this  distinction,  they  only  meant  that  the  word 
Canon  was  often  used  by  the  Fathers,  with  great  lati- 
tude, so  as  to  include  all  books  that  were  ever  read  in 
the  churches,  or  that  were  contained  in  the  volume  of 
the  Greek  Bible,  the  distinction  is  correct,  and  signi- 
fies the  same,  as  is  often  expressed,  by  calling  some 
books  sacred  and  canonical,  and  others,  ecclesiastical. 
But  these  writers  make  it  manifest  that  they  mean 
much  more  than  this.     They  wish  to  put  their  deute- 


78  THE    APOCRYPHA   NOT   WRITTEN 

ro-canonical  books,  on  a   level  with  the  old  Jewish 
Canon;  and  this  distinction  is  intended  to  teach,  that 
after  the    first    Canon    was  constituted,    other  books 
were,  from  time  to  time,  added :  but  when  these  books 
thus  annexed  to  the  Canon  have  been  pronounced  upon 
by  the  competent  authority,  they  are  to  be  received 
as  of   equal   authority  with  the  former.       When  this 
second   Canon  was  constituted,  is  a  matter  concern- 
ing which  they  are  not  agreed ;  some  pretend,  that  in 
the  time  of  Shammai  and  Hillel,  two  famous  rabbies, 
who  lived  before   the  advent  of  the   Saviour,   these 
books  were  added  to  the  Canon.     But  why  then  are 
they  not  included  in  the  Hebrew  Canon  ?     Why  does 
Josephus  never  mention  them  ?     Why  are  they  never 
quoted  nor  alluded  to  in  the  New  Testament  ?     And 
why  did  all  the   earlier  Fathers  omit  to   cite  them, 
or  expressly  reject   them  ?      The   difficulties  of  this 
theory  being  too  prominent,  the  most  of  the  advocates 
of  the  apocrypha,  suppose,  that  these  books,  after  hav- 
ing remained  in  doubt  before,  were  received  by  the 
supreme  authority  of  the  chui'ch,  in  the  fourth  century. 
They  allege,  that  these  books  were  sanctioned  by  the 
council  of  Nice,  and  by  the  third  council  of  Carthage, 
which  met  A.  D.  397.     But  the  story  of  the  method 
pursued  by  the  council  of  Nice,  to  distinguish  between 
canonical  and  spurious  books,  is  fabulous  and  ridiculous. 
There  is  nothing  in  the  Canons  of  that  council  relative 
to  these  books ;  and  certainly,  they  cited  no  authori- 
ties from  them,  in  confirmation  of  the  doctrines  estab- 
li.>>hed  by  them.  And  as  to  the  third  council  of  Carthage, 
it  may  be  asked,  what  authority  had  this  provincial 
Bvnod   to   determine  anytliing  for  the  whole  church, 
respecting  the  Canon?     But  there  is  no  certainty  that 


BY  INSPIRED   MEN.  79 

this  council  did  determine  anything  on  tlie  subject; 
for  in  the  same  Canon,  there  is  mention  made  of  Pope 
Boniface,  as  living  at  that  time,  whereas  he  did  not 
rise  to  this  dignity,  until  more  than  twenty  years  after- 
wards ;  in  which  time,  three  other  popes  occupied  the 
See  of  Rome  ;  so  that  this  Canon  could  not  have  been 
formed  by  the  third  council  of  Carthage.  And  in 
some  copies  it  is  inserted,  as  the  fourteenth  of  the 
seventh  council  of  Carthage.  However  this  may  be, 
we  may  be  confident,  that  no  council  of  the  fourth  cen- 
tury had  any  authority  to  add  to  the  Canon  of  Scrip- 
ture, books  which  were  not  only  not  received  before,  but 
explicitly  rejected  as  apocryphal,  by  most  of  the 
Fathers.  Our  opponents  say,  that  these  books  were 
uncertain  before,  but  now  received  confirmation.  How 
could  there  be  any  uncertainty,  in  regard  to  these 
books,  if  the  church  was  as  infallible,  in  the  first  three 
ages,  as  in  the  fourth.  These  books  were  either 
canonical  before  the  fourth  century,  or  they  were  not : 
if  the  former,  how  came  it  to  pass  that  they  were  not 
recognized  by  the  apostles  ?  How  came  they  to  be 
overlooked  and  rejected  by  the  primitive  Fathers? 
But  if  they  were  not  canonical  before,  they  must  have 
been  made  canonical  by  the  decree  of  some  council. 
That  is,  the  church  can  make  that  an  inspired  book, 
which  was  never  given  by  inspiration.  This  absurdity 
was  mentioned  before,  but  it  deserves  to  be  repeated, 
because,  however  unreasonable  it  may  be,  it  forms  the 
true,  and  almost  the  only  ground,  on  which  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Romish  church,  in  regard  to  these  apocry- 
phal books,  rests.  This  is,  indeed,  a  part  of  the 
Pope's  supremacy.  Some  of  their  best  writers,  how- 
ever, deny  this  doctrine;  and  whatever  others  may. 


80  THE   APOCRYrHA   NOT   WRITTEN 

pretend,  it  is  most  certain,  that  the  Fathers,  with  one 
consent,  believed  that  the  Canon  of  sacred  Scripture 
was  complete  in  their  time :  thej  never  dreamed  of 
books  not  then  canonical,  becoming  such,  by  any 
authority  upon  earth.  Indeed,  the  idea  of  adding  to 
the  Canon,  what  did  not,  from  the  beginning,  belong 
to  it,  never  seems  to  have  entered  the  mind  of  any 
person  in  former  times.  If  this  doctrine  were  correct, 
we  might  still  have  additions  made  to  the  Canon,  and 
that  too,  of  books  which  have  existed  for  hundreds  of 
years. 

This  question  may  be  brought  to  a  speedy  issue, 
with  all  unprejudiced  judges.  These  books  were 
either  written  by  divine  inspiration  for  the  guidance 
of  the  church  in  matters  of  faith  and  practice,  or  they 
were  not ;  if  the  former,  they  always  had  a  right  to  a 
place  in  the  Canon  ;  if  the  latter,  no  act  of  a  pope  or 
council  could  render  that  divine,  which  was  not  so 
before.  It  would  be  to  change  the  nature  of  a  fact, 
than  which  nothing  is  more  impossible. 

It  is  alleged,  with  much  confidence,  that  the  Greek 
Bibles,  used  by  the  Fathers,  contained  these  books ; 
and,  therefore,  whenever  they  give  their  testimony  to 
the  sacred  Scriptures,  these  are  included.  This  argu- 
ment proves  too  much,  for  the  third  book  of  Esdras 
and  the  Prayer  of  Manasses  were  contained  in  these 
volumes,  but  these  are  rejected  by  the  Romanists. 
The  truth,  however,  is,  that  these  books  were  not 
originally  connected  with  the  Septuagint ;  they  were 
probably  introduced  into  some  of  the  later  Greek  ver- 
Bions,  which  were  made  by  heretics.  These  versions, 
particularly  that  of  Tlieodotion,  came  to  be  used  pro- 
miscuously with  that  of  the  LXX ;  and  to  this  day. 


BY  INSPIRED  MEN.  81 

the  common  copies  contain  the  version  of  the  book  of 
Daniel  by  Theodotion,  instead  of  that  by  the  LXX. 

By  some  such  means,  these  apocryphal  books  crept 
into  the  Greek  Bible ;  but  the  early  Fathers  were 
careful  to  distinguish  them  from  the  canonical  Scrip- 
tures, as  we  have  already  seen.  That  they  were 
read  in  the  churches,  is  also  true ;  but  not  as  Scrip- 
ture ;  not  for  the  confirmation  of  doctrine,  but  for 
the  edification  of  the  common  people. 

Some  of  the  Fathers,  it  is  true,  cited  them  as  author- 
ity, but  very  seldom,  and  the  reason  which  rendered 
it  difficult  for  them  to  distinguish  accurately  between 
ecclesiastical  and  canonical  books  has  already  been 
given.  These  pious  men  were  generally  unacquainted 
with  Hebrew  literature,  and  finding  all  these  books  in 
Greek,  and  frequently  bound  up  in  the  same  volume 
with  the  canonical  Scriptures,  and  observing  that  they 
contained  excellent  rules  for  the  direction  of  life  and 
the  regulation  of  morals,  they  sometimes  referred  to 
them,  and  cited  passages  from  them,  and  permitted 
them  to  be  read  in  the  church,  for  the  instruction  and 
edification  of  the  people. 

But  the  more  learned  of  the  Fathers,  who  examined 
into  the  authority  of  the  sacred  books  with  unceasing 
diligence,  clearly  marked  the  distinction  between  such 
books  as  were  canonical,  and  such  as  were  merely  hu- 
man compositions.  And  some  of  them  even  disap- 
proved of  the  reading  of  these  apocryphal  books  by 
the  people  ;  and  some  councils  warned  the  churches 
against  them.  It  was  with  this  single  view  that  so 
many  catalogues  of  the  canonical  books  were  prepared 
and  published. 

Notwithstanding  that  we  have  taken  so  much  pains 


82  THE   APOCRYPHA   NOT   WRITTEN 

to  show  that  the  books  called  apocrypha,  are  not 
canonical,  we  wish  to  avoid  the  opposite  extreme  of 
regarding  them  as  useless,  or  injurious.  Some  of  these 
books  are  important  for  the  historical  information 
which  they  contain ;  and,  especially,  as  the  facts  re- 
corded in  them,  are,  in  some  instances,  the  fulfilment 
of  remarkable  prophecies. 

Others  of  them  are  replete  with  sacred,  moral,  and 
prudential  maxims,  very  useful  to  aid  in  the  regulation 
of  life  and  manners ;  but  even  with  these,  are  inter- 
spersed sentiments,  which  are  not  perfectly  accordant 
with  the  word  of  God.  In  short,  these  books  are  of 
very  different  value,  but  in  the  best  of  them  there  is  so 
much  error  and  imperfection,  as  to  convince  us,  that 
they  are  human  productions,  and  should  be  used  as 
such :  not  as  an  infallible  rule,  but  as  useful  helps  in 
the  attainment  of  knowledge,  and  in  the  practice  of 
virtue.  Therefore,  when  we  would  exclude  them  from 
a  place  in  the  Bible,  we  would  not  proscribe  them 
as  unfit  to  be  read ;  but  we  would  have  them  publislied 
in  a  separate  volume,  and  studied  much  more  carefully 
than  they  commonly  have  been. 

And  while  we  would  dissent  from  the  practice  of 
reading  lessons  from  these  books,  as  Scriptural  lessons 
are  read  in  the  church,  we  would  cordially  recommend 
the  frequent  perusal,  in  private,  of  the  first  of  Macca- 
bees, the  Wisdom  of  Solomon,  and  above  all  Ecclesias- 
ticus. 

It  is  a  dishonour  to  God,  and  a  disparagement  of  his 
word,  to  place  other  books,  in  any  respect  on  a  level 
with  the  divine  oracles ;  but  it  is  a  privilege  to  be 
permitted,  to  have  access  to  the  writings  of  men,  emi- 
nent for  their  wisdom  and  piety.     And  it  is  also  a 


BY  INSPIRED   MEN.  83 

matter  of  curious  instruction  to  learn,  wliat  were  the 
opinions  of  men,  in  ages  long  past,  and  in  countries 
far  remote. 

The  infallibility  of  the  church  of  Rome  is  clearly 
proved  to  be  without  foundation,  by  the  decree  of  the 
Council  of  Trent,  canonizing  the  apocrypha.  If  we 
have  been  successful  in  proving  that  these  books  are 
not  canonical,  the  infallibility  of  both  popes  and  coun- 
cils is  overthrown ;  for  if  they  erred  in  one  instance, 
it  proves  that  the  doctrine  is  false.  One  great  incon- 
venience of  this  doctrine  is,  that  when  that  church 
falls  into  any  error,  she  can  never  retract  it ;  for 
that  would  be  to  acknowledge  her  fallibility. 

Some  allege  that  the  church  of  Rome  is  not  now 
what  she  was  in  former  years ;  but  that  she  has  laid  aside 
opinions  formerly  entertained.  But  this  allegation  is 
inconsistent  with  her  claim  to  infallibility.  According 
to  this,  the  church  of  Rome  has  never  erred  ;  what  she 
has  declared  to  be  true  at  any  time  she  must  forever 
maintain  to  be  true  ;  or  give  up  her  pretensions  to  in- 
fallibility. In  regard  to  the  Apocrypha,  it  is  immate- 
rial, whether  the  infallibility  be  supposed  to  reside  in 
the  pope  or  in  a  council ;  or  in  the  pope  and  council 
united  ;  for  the  council  of  Trent  is  considered  to  be  an 
oecumenical  council  regularly  constituted ;  and  all 
its  acts  were  sanctioned  by  the  popes.  Their  error 
in  pronouncing  the  apocrypha  canonical,  is  decisive  as 
to  the  infallibility  of  the  church. 


!84     NO  CANONICAL  BOOK  HAS  BEEN  LOST. 


SECTION  VI. 


NO  CANONICAL  BOOK  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  HAS  BEEN 
LOST. 

On  this  subject  there  has  existed  some  diversity  of 
opinion.  Chrysostom  is  cited  by  Bellarmine,  as  say- 
ing, "  That  many  of  the  writings  of  the  prophets  had 
perished,  which  may  readily  be  proved  from  the  his- 
tory in  Chronicles.  For  the  Jews  were  negligent,  and 
not  only  negligent  but  impious,  so  that  some  books 
were  lost  through  carelessness,  and  others  were  burned, 
or  otherwise  destroyed." 

In  confirmation  of  tjbis  opinion,  an  appeal  is  made 
to  1  Kings  iv.  32,  33,  where  it  is  said  of  Solomon, 
"  That  he  spake  three  thousand  proverbs,  and  his 
songs  were  a  thousand  and  five.  And  he  spake  of 
trees,  from  the  cedar  in  Lebanon,  even  unto  the 
hyssop,  that  springeth  out  of  the  wall :  he  spake  also 
of  beasts,  and  of  fowl,  and  of  creeping  things,  and  of 
fishes."  All  these  productions,  it  is  acknowledged, 
nave  perished. 

Again  it  is  said  in  1  Chron.  xxix.  29,  30.  "  Now 
the  acts  of  David  the  king,  first  and  last,  behold  they 
arc  written  in  the  book  of  Samuel  the  seer,  and  in  the 
book  of  Nathan  the  prophet,  and  in  the  book  of  Gad 
the  seer ;  with  all  his  reign,  and  his  might,  and  the 
times  that  went  over  him,  and  over  Israel,  and  over  all 


NO  CANONICAL  BOOK  HAS  BEEN  LOST.     85 

the  kingdoms  of  the  countries."  The  book  of  Jasher, 
also,  is  twice  mentioned  in  Scripture.  In  Joshua  x. 
18,  "  And  the  sun  stood  still,  and  the  moon  stayed, 
until  the  people  had  avenged  themselves  on  their 
enemies.  Is  not  this  written  in  the  book  of  Jasher  V* 
And  in  2  Sam.  i.  18,  "  And  he  bade  them  teach  the 
children  of  Israel  the  use  of  the  bow:  behold  it  is 
written  in  the  book  of  Jasher." 

The  book  of  the  Wars  of  the  Lord  is  referred  to,  in 
Num.  xxi.  14.  But  we  have  in  the  Canon  no  books 
under  the  name  of  Nathan  and  Gad :  nor  any  book 
of  Jasher ;  nor  of  the  Wars  of  the  Lord. 

Moreover,  we  frequently  are  referred,  in  the  sacred 
history,  to  other  chronicles  or  annals,  for  a  fuller  ac- 
count of  the  matters  spoken  of,  which  Chronicles  are 
not  now  extant. 

And  in  2  Chron.  ix.  29,  it  is  said,  "  Now  the  rest  of 
the  acts  of  Solomon,  first  and  last,  are  they  not  writ- 
ten in  the  book  of  Nathan  the  prophet,  and  in  the 
prophecy  of  Ahijah  the  Shilonite,  and  in  the  visions 
of  Iddo  the  seer,  against  Jeroboam  the  son  of  Nebat  ?" 
Now  it  is  well  known,  that  none  of  these  writings  of 
the  prophets  are  in  the  Canon ;  at  least,  none  of  them 
under  their  names. 

It  is  said  also  in  2  Chron.  xii.  15,  "  Now  the  acts 
of  Rehoboam,  first  and  last,  are  they  not  written  in 
the  book  of  Shemaiah  the  prophet,  and  of  Iddo  the 
seer,  concerning  genealogies?"  Of  which  works  no- 
thing remains,  under  the  names  of  these  prophets. 

1.  The  first  observation  which  I  would  make  on 

this  subject,  is,  that  every  book  referred  to,  or  quoted 

in  the  sacred  writings,  is  not  necessarily  an  inspired, 

or  canonical  book.     Because  Paul  cites  passages  from 

8 


86  NO   CANONICAL   BOOK 

the  Greek  poets,  it  does  not  follow  tliat  we  must  re- 
ceive their  poems  as  inspired. 

2.  A  book  may  be  written  by  an  inspired  man,  and 
yet  be  neither  inspired  nor  canonical.  Inspiration 
was  not  constantly  afforded  to  the  prophets,  but  was 
occasional,  and  for  particular  important  purposes.  In 
common  matters,  and  especially  in  things  noways 
connected  with  religion,  it  is  reasonable  to  suppose, 
that  the  prophets  and  apostles  were  left  to  the  same 
guidance  of  reason  and  common  sense,  as  other  men. 
A  man,  therefore,  inspired  to  deliver  some  prophecy, 
or  even  to  write  a  canonical  book,  might  write  other 
books,  with  no  greater  assistance  than  other  good  men 
receive.  Because  Solomon  was  inspired  to  write  some 
canonical  books,  it  does  not  follow,  that  what  he  wrote 
on  natural  history,  was  also  inspired.  The  Scrip- 
tures, however,  do  not  say,  that  his  three  thousand 
proverbs,  and  his  discourses  on  natural  history,  were 
ever  committed  to  writing.  It  only  says,  that  he  spake 
these  things.  But  supposing  that  all  these  discourses 
were  committed  to  writing,  which  is  not  improbable, 
there  is  not  the  least  reason  for  believing  that  they 
were  inspired,  any  more  than  Solomon's  private  letters 
to  liis  friends,  if  he  ever  wrote  any.  Let  it  be  remem- 
bered, tliat  tlie  prophets  and  apostles  were  only  inspired 
on  special  occasions,  and  on  particular  subjects,  and  all 
diflieulties  respecting  such  works  as  these  will  vanish. 
How  many  of  the  books  referred  to  in  the  Bible,  and 
mentioned  above,  may  have  been  of  this  descri})tion,  it 
is  now  impossible  to  tell ;  but  probably  several  of  them 
belong  to  this  class.  No  doubt  there  were  many  books 
of  annals,  nuicli  more  minute  and  particular  in  the 
narration  of  facts,  than  those  which  wc  have.     It  was 


HAS  BEEN  LOST.  87 

often  enough  to  refer  to  these  state  papers,  or  public 
documents,  as  being  sufl&ciently  correct,  in  regard  to 
the  facts  on  account  of  which  the  reference  was  made. 
There  is  nothing  derogatory  to  the  word  of  God,  in 
the  supposition  that  the  books  of  Kings  and  Chronicles, 
which  we  have  in  the  Canon,  were  compiled  by  the 
inspired  prophets  from  these  public  records.  All  that 
is  necessary  for  us,  is,  that  the  facts  are  truly  related ; 
and  this  could  be  as  infallibly  secured  on  this  hypo- 
thesis, as  on  any  other. 

The  book  of  the  Wars  of  the  Lord,  might  for  aught 
that  appears,  have  been  merely  a  muster  roll  of  the 
army.  The  word  translated  hook  has  so  extensive  a 
meaning  in  Hebrew,  that  it  is  not  even  necessary  to 
suppose,  that  it  was  a  writing  at  all.  The  book  of 
Jaslier,  (or  of  rectitude,  if  we  translate  the  word,) 
might  have  been  some  useful  compend  taken  froin 
Scripture,  or  composed  by  the  wise,  for  the  regulation 
of  justice  and  equity,  between  man  and  man. 

Augustine,  in  his  City  of  God,  has  distinguished 
accurately  on  this  subject.  "  I  think,"  says  he,  "that 
those  books  which  should  have  authority  in  religion 
were  revealed  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  that  men  com- 
posed others  by  historical  diligence,  as  the  prophets  did 
these  by  inspiration.  And  these  two  classes  of  books 
are  so  distinct,  that  it  is  only  of  those  written  by  in- 
spiration, that  we  are  to  suppose  God,  through  them, 
to  be  speaking  unto  us.  The  one  class  is  useful  for 
fulness  of  knowledge ;  the  other  for  authority  in  reli- 
gion ;  in  which  authority  the  Canon  is  preserved." 

3.  But  again,  it  may  be  maintained,  without  any 
prejudice  to  the  completeness  of  the  Canon,  that  there 
may  have  been  inspired  writings  which  were  not  in- 


88  NO   CANONICAL    BOOK 

tended  for  the  instruction  of  the  church  in  all  ages, 
but  composed  by  the  prophets  for  some  special  occasion. 
These  writings,  though  inspired,  were  not  canonical. 
They  were  temporary  in  their  design,  and  when  that 
was  accomplished,  they  were  no  longer  needed.  We 
know  that  the  prophets  delivered,  by  inspiration,  many 
discourses  to  the  people,  of  which  we  have  not  a  trace 
on  record.  Many  true  prophets  are  mentioned,  who 
wrote  nothing  that  we  know  of;  and  several  are  men- 
tioned, whose  names  are  not  even  given.  The  same 
is  true  of  the  apostles.  Very  few  of  them  had  any 
concern  in  writing  the  canonical  Scriptures,  and  yet 
they  all  possessed  plenary  inspiration.  And  if  they 
wrote  letters,  on  special  occasions,  to  the  churches 
planted  by  them ;  yet  these  were  not  designed  for  the 
perpetual  instruction  of  the  universal  church.  There- 
fore Shemaiahj  and  Iddo,  and  Nathan,  and  Gad, 
might  have  written  some  things  by  inspiration,  which 
were  never  intended  to  form  a  part  of  the  Sacred 
Volume.  It  is  not  asserted,  that  there  certainly  existed 
such  temporary  inspired  writings :  all  that  is  necessary 
to  be  maintained,  is,  that  supposing  such  to  have  ex- 
isted, which  is  not  improbable,  it  does  not  follow 
that  the  Canon  is  incomplete,  by  reason  of  their  loss. 
As  this  opinion  may  be  startling  to  some,  who  have 
not  thoroughly  considered  it,  I  will  call  in  to  its  sup- 
port the  oi)inions  of  some  distinguished  theologians. 

"  It  has  been  observed,"  says  Francis  Junius,  "that 
it  is  one  tiling  to  call  a  book  sacred,  another  to  say 
that  it  is  canonical ;  for  every  book  was  sacred  which 
was  edited  by  a  proplict,  or  apostle ;  but  it  does  not 
follow  that  every  such  sacred  book  is  canonical,  and 


HAS  BEEN   LOST.  89 

was  designed  for  the  whole  body  of  the  church.  For 
example,  it  is  credible  that  Isaiah  the  prophet  wrote 
many  things,  as  a  prophet,  which  were  truly  inspired, 
but  those  writings  only  were  canonical,  which  God 
consecrated  to  the  treasure  of  the  church,  and  which 
by  special  direction  were  added  to  the  public  Canon. 
Thus  Paul  and  the  other  apostles  may  have  written 
many  things,  by  divine  inspiration,  which  are  not  now 
extant ;  but  those  only  are  canonical,  which  were 
placed  in  the  Sacred  Volume,  for  the  use  of  the  uni- 
versal church :  which  Canon  received  the  approbation 
of  the  apostles,  especially  of  John,  who  so  long  pre- 
sided over  the  churches  in  Asia."* 

The  evangelical  WiTSius,  of  an  age  somewhat 
later,  delivers  his  opinion  on  this  point,  in  the  follow- 
ing manner  :  "  No  one,  I  think,  can  doubt,  but  that  all 
the  apostles  in  the  diligent  exercise  of  their  office,  wrote 
frequent  letters  to  the  churches  under  their  care,  when 
they  could  not  be  present  with  them ;  and  to  whom 
they  might  often  wish  to  communicate  some  instruc- 
tion necessary  for  them  in  the  circumstances  in 
which  they  were  placed.  It  would  seem  to  me  to 
be  injurious  to  the  reputation  of  those  faithful  and 
assiduous  men,  to  suppose,  that  not  one  of  them  ever 
wrote  any  epistle,  or  addressed  to  a  church,  any 
writing,  except  those  few,  whose  epistles  are  in  the 
Canon.  Now,  as  Peter,  and  Paul,  and  James,  and 
John,  were  induced  to  write  to  the  churches,  on  ac- 
count of  the  need  in  which  they  stood  of  instruction, 
why  would  not  the  same  necessity  induce  the  other 
apostles  to  write  to  the  churches  under  their  care? 
Nor  is  there  any  reason  why  we  should  complain  of 

*  Explic.  in  Numb.  xxi. 
8* 


90  NO    CANONICAL    BOOK 

the  great  loss  Tvliich  we  have  sustained,  because  these 
precious  documents  have  perished ;  it  is  rather  matter 
of  gratitude,  that  so  many  have  been  preserved  by  the 
provident  benevolence  of  God  towards  us,  and  so 
abundantly  sufficient  to  instruct  us,  in  the  things  per- 
taining to  salvation."  * 

Although  I  have  cited  this  passage  from  this  excel- 
lent and  orthodox  theologian,  in  favour  of  the  senti- 
ment advanced ;  yet  I  do  not  feel  at  liberty  to  go  the 
whole  length  of  his  opinion,  here  expressed.  There  is 
no  reason  to  think,  that  any  of  the  other  apostles  com- 
posed such  works,  as  those  which  constitute  the  Canon 
of  the  New  Testament.  If  they  had,  some  of  them 
would  have  been  preserved,  or  at  least,  some  memo- 
rial of  such  writings  would  have  been  handed  down, 
in  those  churches  to  which  they  were  addressed. 
These  churches  received  and  preserved  the  canonical 
books  of  those  whose  writings  we  have,  and  why  should 
they  neglect,  or  suffer  to  sink  into  oblivion,  similar 
writings  of  apostles,  from  whom  they  first  received 
the  gospel  ? 

Indeed,  after  all,  this  argument  is  merely  hypotheti- 
cal, and  would  be  sufficient  to  answer  the  objections 
which  might  be  made,  if  it  could  be  proved,  that  some 
inspired  writings  had  perished ;  but,  in  fact,  there  is 
no  proof  that  any  such  ever  existed.  It  is,  therefore, 
higlily  probable,  that  we  are  in  actual  possession  of  all 
the  books  penned  under  the  plenary  inspiration  of  the 
Holy  Spirit. 

The  last  remark  which  I  shall  make  in  relation  to 
the  books  of  the  Old  Testament  supposed  to  be  lost, 
is,  that  it  is  highly  probable  that  we  have  several  of 
*  IVIclctem  De  Vita  Pauli. 


HAS  BEEN  LOST.  91 

them  now  In  the  Canon,  under  another  name.  The 
books  of  Samuel,  Kings,  and  Chronicles,  were, 
probably,  not  written  by  one,  but  by  a  succession  of 
prophets. 

There  is  reason  to  believe,  that  until  the  Canon  of 
the  Old  Testament  was  closed,  the  succession  of  pro- 
phets was  never  interrupted.  Whatever  was  necessary 
to  be  added,  by  way  of  explanation,  to  any  book 
already  received  into  the  Canon,  they  were  competent 
to  annex ;  or,  whatever  annals  or  histories,  it  was  the 
purpose  of  God  to  have  transmitted  to  posterity,  they 
would  be  directed  and  inspired  to  prepare.  Thus 
diflferent  parts  of  these  books  might  have  been  penned 
by  G-ad,  Nathan^  Iddo,  SJiemaiah,  ^e. 

That  some  parts  of  these  histories  were  prepared  by 
prophets,  we  have  clear  proof,  in  one  instance ;  for, 
Isaiah  has  inserted  in  his  prophecy  several  chapters, 
which  are  contained  in  2  Kings,  and  which,  I  think, 
there  can  be  no  doubt,  were  originally  written  by 
himself.  See  2  Kings  xviii.  xix.  xx.,  compared  with 
Isaiah  xxxvi.  xxxvii.  xxxviii. 

The  Jewish  doctors  are  of  opinion,  that  the  book  of 
Jasher,  is  one  of  the  books  of  the  Pentateuch,  or  the 
whole  law. 

The  book  of  the  Wars  of  the  Lord  has  by  many 
been  supposed  to  be  no  other  than  the  book  of 
Numbers. 

Thus,  I  think,  it  sufficiently  appears,  from  an  ex- 
amination of  particulars,  that  there  exists  no  evidence, 
that  any  canonical  book  of  the  Old  Testament  has 
been  lost.  To  which  we  may  add,  that  there  are 
many  general  considerations  of  great  weight,  which  go 


92  NO    CANONCAL   BOOK 

to  prove,  that  no  part  of  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old 
Testament  has  been  lost. 

The  first  is,  that  God  by  his  providence  would  pre- 
serve from  destruction  books  given  by  inspiration,  and 
intended  for  the  perpetual  instruction  of  his  church. 
It  is  reasonable  to  think,  that  he  would  not  suffer  his 
gracious  purpose  to  be  frustrated  ;  and  this  argument, 
a  priori,  is  greatly  strengthened  by  the  fact,  that  a 
remarkable  providential  care  has  been  exercised  in  the 
preservation  of  the  Sacred  Scriptures.  It  is  truly 
wonderful,  that  so  many  books  should  have  been  pre- 
served unmutilated,  through  hundreds  and  thousands 
of  years  ;  and  during  vicissitudes  so  great ;  and  espe- 
cially when  powerful  tyrants  were  so  desirous  of  anni- 
hilating the  religion  of  the  Jews,  and  used  their  utmost 
exertions  to  destroy  their  sacred  books. 

Another  consideration  of  great  weight  is,  the  reli- 
gious, and  even  scrupulous  care,  with  which  the  Jews, 
as  far  as  we  can  trace  the  history  of  the  Sacred  Scrip- 
tures, have  watched  over  their  preservation.  There 
can,  I  think,  be  little  doubt,  that  they  exercised  the 
same  vigilance  during  that  period  of  their  history  of 
which  we  have  no  monuments. 

The  translation  of  these  books  into  Greek,  is  suffi- 
cient to  show,  that  the  same  books  existed  nearly  three 
hundred  years  before  the  advent  of  Christ. 

And  above  all,  the  unqualified  testimony  to  the 
Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament,  by  Christ  and  his 
apostles,  ought  to  satisfy  us,  that  we  have  lost  none 
of  the  inspired  books  of  the  Canon. 

Tlic  Scriptures  are  constantly  referred  to,  and  quoted 
as  infallible  authority,  by  them,   as  we  have  before 


HAS   BEEN   LOST.  9S 

shown.  These  oracles  were  committed  to  the  Jews  as 
a  sacred  deposit,  and  they  are  never  charged  with  un- 
faithfulness in  this  trust.  The  Scriptures  are  de- 
clared to  have  been  written  for  our  learning  ;  and  no 
intimation  is  given  that  they  had  ever  been  mutilated, 
or  in  any  degree  corrupted. 


94  ORAL    LAW   OF   THE   JEWS 


SECTION  VII. 


THE  ORAL  LAW  OF  THE  JEWS  WITHOUT  FOUNDATION. 

However  the  Jews  may  seem  to  agree  with  us,  in 
regard  to  the  Canon  of  the  Old  Testament,  this  con- 
cord  relates  only  to  the  written  law ;  for  they  obsti- 
nately persist  in  maintaining,  that  besides  the  law 
which  was  engraven  on  tables  of  stone,  and  the  other 
precepts,  and  ordinances,  which  were  communicated 
to  Moses,  and  were  ordered  to  be  written,  God  gave 
unto  him  another  Laiv,  explanatory  of  the  first,  which 
he  was  commanded  not  to  commit  to  writing,  but  to 
deliver  down  by  oral  tradition. 

The  account  which  the  Jewish  doctors  give  of  the 
first  communication  and  subsequent  delivery  of  this 
law,  is  found  in  the  Talmud.  It  is  there  stated,  that 
during  the  whole  day,  while  Moses  continued  on  the 
mount,  he  was  learning  the  written  law,  but  at  night 
he  was  occupied  in  receiving  the  oral  law. 

When  Moses  descended  from  the  mount,  they  say, 
tliat  he  first  called  Aaron  into  his  tent,  and  communi- 
cated to  him  all  that  he  had  learned  of  this  oral  law ; 
then  he  placed  him  on  his  right  hand.  Next  he  called 
in  Eliczer  and  Ithamar,  the  sons  of  Aaron,  and  re- 
peated the  whole  to  them ;  on  which  they  also  took 
their  seats,  the  one  on  his  right  hand,  the  other  on  his 
left.  After  this  the  seventy  elders  entered,  and  re- 
ceived the  same  instruction  as  Aaron  and  his  sons. 


WITHOUT   FOUNDATION.  95 

And  finally,  the  same  corpmunication  was  made  to  the 
whole  multitude  of  people.  Then  Moses  arose  and 
departed,  and  Aaron,  who  had  now  heard  the  whole 
four  times,  repeated  what  he  had  learned,  and  also 
withdrew.  In  the  same  manner,  Eliezer  and  Ithamar, 
each  in  turn,  went  over  the  same  ground,  and  departed. 
And  finally,  the  seventy  elders  repeated  the  whole  to 
the  people  ;  every  one  of  whom  delivered  what  he  had 
heard  to  his  neighbour.  Thus,  according  to  Maimo- 
NIDES,  was  the  oral  law  first  given. 

The  Jewish  account  of  its  transmission  to  posterity 
is  no  less  particular.  They  pretend  that  Moses, 
when  forty  years  had  elapsed  from  the  time  of  the 
Israelites  leaving  Egypt,  called  all  the  people,  and 
telling  them  that  his  end  drew  near,  requested  that  if 
any  of  them  had  forgotten  aught  of  what  he  had  de- 
livered to  them,  they  should  repair  to  him,  and  he 
would  repeat  to  them  anew  what  they  might  have  for- 
gotten. And  they  tell  us,  that  from  the  first  day  of 
the  eleventh  month,  to  the  sixth  day  of  the  twelfth,  he 
was  occupied  in  nothing  else  than  repeating  and  ex- 
plaining the  law  to  the  people. 

But,  in  a  special  manner,  he  committed  this  law  to 
Joshua,  by  whom  it  was  communicated,  shortly  before 
his  death,  to  Phineas,  the  son  of  Eliezer ;  by  Phineas, 
to  Eli ;  by  Eli,  to  Samuel ;  by  Samuel,  to  David  and 
Ahijah;  by  Ahijah,  to  Elijah;  by  Elijah,  to  Elisha ; 
by  Elisha,  to  Jehoiada ;  by  Jehoiada,  to  Zechariah ;  by 
Zechariah  to  Hosea ;  by  Hosea,  to  Amos ;  by  Amos, 
to  Isaiah ;  by  Isaiah,  to  Micah ;  by  Micah,  to  Joel ; 
by  Joel,  to  Nahum ;  by  Nahum,  to  Habakkuk ;  by 
Habakkuk,  to  Zephaniah ;  by  Zephaniah,  to  Jeremiah ; 
by  Jeremiah,  to  Baruch  ;  by  Baruch,  to  Ezra,  the  pre- 


96  ORAL   LAW   OF   THE  JEWS 

sident  of  the  great  synagogue.  By  Ezra,  this  law  was 
delivered  to  the  high  priest  Jaddua ;  by  Jaddua,  to 
Antigonus  ;  by  Antigonus,  to  Joseph  son  of  John,  and 
Joseph  son  of  Jehezer;  by  these  to  Aristobulus,  and 
Joshua  the  son  of  Perechiah ;  by  them  to  Judah  son 
of  Tiboeus,  and  Simeon  son  of  Satah.  Thence  to 
Shemaiah — to  Hillel — to  Simeon  his  son,  supposed 
to  have  been  the  same  who  took  our  Saviour  in  his 
arms,  in  the  temple,  when  brought  thither  to  be  pre- 
sented by  his  parents.  From  Simeon,  it  passed  to 
Gamaliel,  the  preceptor,  as  it  is  supposed,  of  Paul. 
Then  to  Simeon  his  son;  and  finally,  to  the  son  of 
Simeon,  Judah  Hakkadosh,  by  whom  it  was  com- 
mitted to  writing. 

But,  although,  the  above  list  brings  down  an  un- 
broken succession,  from  Moses  to  Judah  the  Holy, 
yet  to  render  the  tradition  still  more  certain,  the 
Jewish  doctors  inform  us,  that  this  oral  law  was  also 
committed,  in  a  special  manner,  to  the  high  priests, 
and  handed  down,  through  their  line,  until  it  was  com- 
mitted to  wTiting. 

Judah  Hakkadosh  was  the  president  of  the  Academy 
at  Tiberias,  and  was  held  in  great  reputation  for  his 
sanctity,  from  which  circumstance  he  received  his 
surname,  Hakkadosh  the  Holy.  The  temple  being 
now  desolate,  and  the  nation  scattered  abroad,  it  was 
feared  lest  the  traditionary  law  might  be  lost ;  there- 
fore it  was  resolved  to  preserve  it  by  committing  it  to 
writing.  Judah  the  Holy,  who  lived  about  the  middle 
of  the  second  century,  undertook  this  work,  and  di- 
gested all  the  traditions  he  could  collect  in  six  books, 
each  consisting  of  several  tracts.  The  whole  number 
ia  sixty-three.     But  these  tracts  are  again  subdivided 


WITHOUT   FOUNDATION.  97 

into  numerous  chapters.  This  is  the  famous  Mishna 
of  the  Jews.  When  finished,  it  was  received  by  the 
nation  with  the  highest  respect  and  confidence;  and 
their  doctors  began,  forthwith,  to  compose  commen- 
taries on  every  part  of  it,  These  comments  are  called 
the  G-emara,  or  the  Completion;  and  the  Mishna 
and  G-emardy  together,  form  the  Talmud.  But  as  this 
work  of  commenting  on  the  text  of  the  Mishna  was 
pursued,  not  only  in  Judea,  but  in  Babylonia,  where  a 
large  number  of  Jews  resided,  hence  it  came  to  pass, 
that  two  Talmuds  were  formed;  the  one  called  the 
Jerusalem  Talmud,  the  other,  the  Babylonish  Tal- 
mud. In  both  these,  the  Mishna,  committed  to  writing 
by  Judah,  is  the  text ;  but  the  commentaries  are  widely 
different.  The  former  was  completed  before  the  close 
of  the  third  century  of  the  Christian  era;  the  latter 
was  not  completed  until  towards  the  close  of  the  fifth 
century.  The  Babylonish  Talmud  is  much  the  larger 
of  the  two ;  for  while  that  of  Jerusalem  has  been 
printed  in  one  folio  volume,  this  fills  twelve  folios. 
This  last  is  also  held  in  much  higher  esteem  by  the 
Jews  than  the  other ;  and,  indeed,  it  comprehends  all 
the  learning  and  religion  of  that  people,  since  they 
have  been  cast  off  for  their  unbelief  and  rejection  of 
the  true  Messiah. 

Maimonides  has  given  an  excellent  digest  of  all 
the  laws  and  institutions  enjoined  in  this  great  work. 

The  Jews  place  fully  as  much  faith  in  the  Talmud 
as  they  do  in  the  Bible.  Indeed,  it  is  held  in  much 
greater  esteem,  and  the  reading  of  it  is  much  more 
encouraged.  It  is  a  saying  of  one  of  their  most 
esteemed  Rabbles,  "-  That  the  oral  law  is  the  founda- 
tion of  the  written ;  nor  can  the  written  law  be  ex- 
9 


98  ORAL   LAW   OF   THE   JEWS 

pounded,  but  by  the  oral."  Agreeably  to  this,  in  tlieir 
confession,  called  the  Crolden  Altar,  it  is  said,  "  It  is 
impossible  for  us  to  stand  upon  the  foundation  of  our 
holy  law,  which  is  the  written  law,  unless  it  be  by  the 
oral  law,  which  is  the  exposition  thereof."  In  the 
Talmud  it  is  written,  "  That  to  give  attention  to  the 
study  of  the  Bible  is  some  virtue ;  but  he  who  pays 
attention  to  the  study  of  the  Mishna,  possesses  a 
virtue  which  shall  receive  a  reward ;  and  he  who  occu- 
pies himself  in  reading  the  Gemara,  has  a  virtue,  than 
■which  there  is  none  more  excellent."  Nay,  they  go 
to  the  impious  length  of  saying,  "  That  he  who  is 
employed  in  the  study  of  the  Bible  and  nothing  else, 
does  but  waste  his  time."  They  maintain,  that  if  the 
declarations  of  this  oral  law  be  ever  so  inconsistent 
with  reason  and  common  sense,  they  must  be  received 
with  implicit  faith — ''You  must  not  depart  from  them,'* 
says  Rabbi  Solomon  Jarchi,  "  if  they  should  assert  that 
your  right  hand  is  your  left,  or  your  left  your  right." 
And  in  the  Talmud  it  is  taught,  "  That,  to  sin  against 
the  words  of  the  scribes,  is  far  more  grievous  than  to 
sin  against  the  words  of  the  Law."  ''My  son,  attend 
rather  to  the  words  of  the  scribes,  than  to  the  words 
of  the  Law."  "The  text  of  the  Bible  is  like  water, 
but  the  Mishna  is  like  wine;"  with  many  other  similar 
comparisons. 

Without  the  oral  law,  they  assert,  that  the  written 
law  remains  in  perfect  darkness  ;  for,  say  they,  "  There 
are  many  things  in  Scriptm'C,  which  are  contradictory, 
and  which  can  in  no  way  be  reconciled,  but  by  the 
oral  law,  which  Moses  received  on  Mount  Sinai."  In 
conformity  with  these  sentiments,  is  the  conduct  of  the 
Jews  until  this  day.     Their  learned  men  spend  almost 


WITHOUT   FOUNDATION.  99 

all  their  time  in  poring  over  the  Talmud ;  and  he, 
among  them,  who  knows  most  of  the  contents  of  this 
monstrous  farrago  of  lies  and  nonsense,  is  esteemed  the 
most  learned  man.  In  consequence  of  their  implicit 
faith  in  this  oral  law,  it  becomes  almost  useless  to 
reason  with  the  Jews  out  of  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old 
Testament.  It  is  a  matter  of  real  importance,  there- 
fore, to  show  that  this  whole  fabric  rests  on  a  sandy 
foundation ;  and  to  demonstrate  that  there  is  no  evi- 
dence whatever  that  any  such  law  was  ever  given  to 
Moses  on  Sinai.  To  this  subject,  therefore,  I  would 
now  solicit  the  attention  of  the  reader. 

Here,  then,  let  it  be  observed,  that  we  have  no  con- 
troversy with  the  Jews  concerning  the  written  law, 
Moral,  Ceremonial,  or  Political ;  nor  do  we  deny  that 
Moses  received  from  God,  on  Mount  Sinai,  some 
explication  of  the  written  law.  But  what  we  main- 
tain is,  that  this  exposition  did  not  form  a  second  dis- 
tinct law ;  that  it  was  not  the  same  as  the  oral  law  of 
the  Jews,  contained  in  the  Talmud;  that  it  was  not 
received  by  Moses  in  a  distinct  form  from  the  written 
law,  and  attended  with  a  prohibition  to  commit  it  to 
writing. 

In  support  of  these  positions,  we  solicit  the  attention 
of  the  impartial  reader  to  the  following  arguments : 

1.  There  is  not  the  slightest  mention  of  any  such 
law  in  all  the  sacred  records ;  neither  of  its  original 
communication  to  Moses,  nor  of  its  transmission  to 
posterity,  in  the  way  pretended  by  the  Jews.  Now, 
we  ask,  is  it  probable,  that  if  such  a  law  had  been 
given,  there  should  never  have  been  any  hint  of  the 
matter,  nor  the  least  reference  to  it,  in  the  whole 
Bible?     Certainly,  this  total  silence  of  Scripture  is 


100  ORAL  LAW  OF  THE  JEWS 

very  little  favourable  to  the  doctrine  of  an  oral  law. 
Maimonidcs  does  indeed  pretend  to  find  a  reference 
to  it  in  Exodus  xxiv.  12.  "  I  will  give  you,  saith  the 
Lord,  a  law  and  commandment ;"  by  the  first  of  these 
he  understands  the  written  law,  and  by  the  last  the 
oral.  But  if  he  had  only  attended  to  the  words  next 
ensuing,  he  would  never  have  adduced  this  text  in  con- 
firmation of  an  oral  law  ;  "  which  I  have  written  that 
thou  mayst  teach  them."  And  we  know  that  it  is 
very  common  to  express  the  written  law  by  both  these 
terms,  as  well  as  by  several  others  of  the  same  import. 
Now,  if  no  record  exists  of  such  a  law  having  been 
given  to  Moses,  how  can  we,  at  this  late  period,  be 
satisfied  of  the  fact  ?  If  it  was  never  heard  of  for 
more  than  two  thousand  years  afterwards,  what  evi- 
dence is  there  that  it  ever  existed  ? 

2.  Again,  we  know  that  in  the  time  of  king  Josiah, 
the  written  law,  which  had  been  lost,  was  found  again. 
How  great  was  the  consternation  of  the  pious  king 
and  his  court,  on  this  occasion !  How  memorable  the 
history  of  this  fact !  But  what  became  of  the  oral 
law  during  this  period  ?  Is  it  reasonable  to  think,  that 
this  would  remain  uninjured  through  successive  ages 
of  idolatry,  when  the  written  law  was  so  entirely  for- 
gotten ?  If  they  had  lost  the  knowledge  of  what  was 
in  their  written  law,  would  they  be  likely  to  retain 
that  wliich  was  oral  ?  If  the  written  law  was  lost, 
would  the  traditionary  law  be  preserved  ?  And  if  this 
was  at  any  time  lost,  how  could  it  be  recovered?  Not 
from  tlic  written  law,  for  this  does  not  contain  it;  not 
from  the  memory  of  man,  for  the  supposition  is,  that 
it  was  thence  obliterated.  If,  then,  this  law,  by  any 
chance,  was  once  lost,  it  is  manifest  that  it  could  never 


WITHOUT   FOUNDATION.  101 

be  recovered,  but  by  divine  revelation.  And  wben  we 
survey  the  history  of  the  Jews,  is  it  conceivable,  that 
such  a  body  of  law,  as  that  contained  in  the  Talmud, 
immensely  larger  than  the  written  law,  could  have 
been  preserved  entire,  through  so  many  generations, 
merely  by  oral  communication?  The  Jews,  indeed, 
amuse  us  with  a  fable  on  this  subject.  They  tell  us 
that  while  the  Israelites  mourned  on  account  of  the 
death  of  Moses,  they  forgot  three  thousand  of  these 
traditions,  which  were  recovered  by  the  ingenuity  of 
Othniel  the  son  of  Kenaz.  This  is  ridiculous  enough. 
What  a  heap  of  traditions  must  that  have  been,  from 
which  three  thousand  could  be  lost  at  once  !  And  how 
profound  the  genius  of  Othniel,  which  was  able  to 
bring  to  light  such  a  multitude  of  precepts,  after  they 
had  been  completely  forgotten !  But  the  proof  of  this 
fact  is  more  ludicrous  still.  It  is  derived  from  Joshua 
XV.  16, 17.  "  And  Caleb  said.  He  that  smiteth  Kirjath- 
Sepher,  and  taketh  it,  to  him  will  I  give  Achsah  my 
daughter  to  wife.  And  Othniel  the  son  of  Kenaz,  the 
brother  of  Caleb,  took  it :  and  he  gave  him  Achsah 
his  daughter  to  wife."  The  unlearned  reader  should 
he  informed  that  Kirjath-Sepher^  means  the  city  of 
the  booJc. 

But  who  retained  the  oral  law  safely  preserved  in 
his  memory  during  the  long  reign  of  Manasseh,  and 
during  the  reign  of  Amon,  and  of  Josiah?  Where 
was  that  law,  during  the  seventy  years  captivity  in 
Babylon  ?  Have  we  not  a  word  to  inform  us  of  the 
fate  of  this  law  in  all  the  histories  of  those  times  ? 
What  I  is  there  not  a  hint  concerning  the  preservation 
of  a  deposit  so  precious  as  this  law  is  pretended  to  be  ? 
We  must  say  again,  that  this  continued  silence  of 
9* 


102  ORAL  LAW  OF  THE  JEWS 

Scripture,  through  a  period  of  so  many  hundred  years, 
speaks  little  in  favour  of  the  unwritten  law. 

3.  The  Jews  again  inform  us,  that  this  law  was 
prohibited  to  be  written ;  but  whence  do  they  derive 
tlie  proof  of  the  assertion  ?  Let  the  evidence,  if  there 
be  any,  be  produced.  Must  we  have  recourse  to  the 
oral  law  itself,  for  testimony?  Be  it  so.  But  why 
then  is  it  now  written,  and  has  been,  for  more  than 
fifteen  hundred  years  ?  In  the  Talmud,  it  is  said, 
*'  The  words  of  the  written  law,  it  is  not  lawful  for  you 
to  commit  to  oral  tradition ;  nor  the  words  of  the  oral 
law  to  writing."  And  Sol.  Jarchi  says,  "Neither  is 
it  lawful  to  write  the  oral  law."  Now  we  say,  there 
was  a  law  containing  such  a  prohibition,  or  there  was 
not.  If  the  former,  then  the  Talmudists  have  trans- 
gressed a  positive  precept  of  this  law,  in  committing 
it  to  writing ;  if  the  latter,  then  their  Talmud  and 
their  rabbies  speak  falsely.  Let  them  choose  in  this 
dilemma. 

4.  But  it  can  be  proved,  that  whatever  laws  Moses 
received  from  God,  the  same  he  was  commanded  to 
write.  It  is  said,  "And  Moses  came  and  told  the 
people  all  the  words  of  the  Lord.  And  Moses  wrote 
all  the  words  of  the  Lord."  Exod.  xxiv.  3,  4. 

And  again,  it  is  said,  "And  the  Lord  said  to  Moses, 
AVrite  these  words,  for  according  to  these  words  have  I 
made  a  covenant  with  you  and  with  Israel."  Exod. 
xxxiv.  27,  28.  And  it  is  worthy  of  particular  obser- 
vation, that  whenever  the  people  are  called  upon  to 
obey  the  law  of  the  Lord,  no  mention  is  made  of  any 
other  than  the  written  law.  Thus  Moses,  when  his 
end  approached,  made  a  speech  unto  the  people;  after 
which,  it  is  added,  "  And  Moses  wrote  this  law,  and 


WITHOUT  FOUNDATION.  103 

delivered  it  unto  tlie  priests  the  sons  of  Levi,  which 
bare  the  ark  of  the  covenant  of  the  Lord,  and  unto  all 
the  elders  of  Israel.  And  Moses  commanded  them 
saying,  At  the  end  of  every  seven  years,  in  the 
solemnity  of  the  year  of  release,  in  the  feast  of  taber- 
nacles, when  all  Israel  is  come  to  appear  before  the 
Lord  thy  God,  in  the  place  which  he  shall  choose, 
thou  shalt  read  it  before  all  Israel  in  their  hearing." 
Deut.  xxxi.  9,  24. 

Here,  observe,  there  is  no  mention  of  any  other  but 
the  written  law.  There  is  no  direction  to  repeat  the 
oral  law,  at  this  time  of  leisure;  but  surely  it  was 
more  necessary  to  command  the  people  to  do  this,  if 
there  had  been  such  a  law,  than  to  hear  the  written 
law  which  they  might  read  from  time  to  time. 

In  the  time  of  Ahaz,  the  sacred  historian  informs 
us,  "That  the  Lord  testified  against  Israel,  and 
against  Judah,  by  all  the  prophets,  and  by  all  the 
seers,  saying.  Turn  ye  from  your  evil  ways,  and  keep 
my  commandments  and  statutes,  according  to  all  the 
law  which  I  commanded  your  fathers,  and  which  I 
sent  unto  you  by  my  servants  the  prophets."  2  Kings 
xvii.  13,  37. 

Now,  it  is  very  manifest  that  the  law  which  they 
are  reproved  for  breaking,  was  the  written  law ;  for  in 
the  same  chapter  we  have  the  following  exhortation : 
"  And  the  statutes,  and  the  ordinances,  and  the  law, 
and  the  commandments  which  he  wrote  for  you,  ye 
shall  observe  to  do  for  evermore." 

The  prophets  continually  refer  the  people  "  to  the 
law  and  to  the  testimony,"  and  declare,  "if  they 
speak  not  according  to  this  word,  it  is  because  there 
is  no  light  in  them." 


104  ORAL  LAW  OF  THE  JEWS 

When  Jehoshaphat  set  about  reforming  and  instruct- 
ing the  people,  and  set  on  foot  an  important  missionj 
consisting  of  princes  and  Levites,  to  teach  them,  they 
confined  themselves  to  what  was  written  in  the  Scrip- 
tures, "  And  they  taught  in  Judah,  and  had  the  book 
of  the  law  of  the  Lord  with  them,  and  went  about 
through  all  the  cities  of  Judah,  and  taught  the  peo- 
ple." 2  Chron.  xvii.  9. 

So  also  Ezra,  when  he  instructed  the  people  who 
had  returned  from  Babylon,  made  use  of  no  other  than 
the  written  law;  "And  Ezra  the  priest  brought  the 
law  before  the  congregation,  both  of  men  and  women, 
and  all  that  could  hear  with  understanding.  And  he 
read  therein  before  the  street,  that  was  before  the 
water-gate,  from  the  morning  until  mid-day,  before 
the  men  and  the  women,  and  those  that  could  under- 
stand :  and  the  ears  of  all  the  people  were  attentive 
unto  the  book  of  the  law.  And  Ezra  stood  upon  a 
pulpit  of  wood,  which  they  had  made  for  the  purpose  ; 
and  Ezra  opened  the  book  in  sight  of  all  the  people, 
and  when  he  opened  it,  all  the  people  stood  up.  And 
the  priests  and  the  Levites  caused  the  people  to  un- 
derstand the  law ;  and  they  read  in  the  book,  in  the 
law  of  God  distinctly,  and  gave  the  sense,  and  caused 
the  people  to  understand  the  reading."  Neh.  viii. 
2-0,  7,  8. 

5.  Besides,  the  written  law  is  pronounced  to  be  per- 
fect, so  that  nothing  need,  or  could  be  added  to  it; 
therefore  tlie  oral  law  was  superfluous.  "  The  law  of 
the  Lord  is  perfect,  converting  the  soul."  Psa.  xix.  8. 
"  Ye  sliiiU  not  add  unto  the  word  which  I  command 
you,  neither  shall  ye  diminish  aught  from  it,  that  ye 


WITHOUT  FOUNDATION.  105 

may  keep  the  commandments  of  the  Lord  your  God, 
which  I  command  you."  Deut.  iv.  1,  2. 

It  is  not  a  valid  objection  which  they  bring  against 
this  argument,  that  Christians  add  the  gospel  to  the 
law ;  for  this  is  not,  properly  speaking,  a  new  law. 
The  gospel  is  a  promise  of  grace  and  salvation.  The 
precepts  of  the  law  are,  indeed,  specially  employed  in 
the  gospel,  to  a  purpose  for  which  they  were  not  origi- 
nally intended ;  but  the  gospel,  in  whatever  light  it 
may  be  viewed,  is  committed  to  writing,  and  no  part 
of  it  left  to  depend  on  oral  tradition. 

6.  In  the  numerous  exhortations  and  injunctions  of 
Almighty  God,  recorded  in  the  Old  Testament,  there 
is  not  an  instance  of  any  one  being  commanded  to  do 
anything  not  contained  in  the  written  law,  which 
proves,  that  either  there  was  no  other  law  in  existence, 
or  that  obedience  to  it  was  not  required ;  and  if  obe- 
dience was  not  required,  then,  certainly,  there  was  no 
law.* 

Moreover,  many  of  the  Jews  themselves  concur  with 
us  in  rejecting  the  oral  law.  The  chief  advocates  of 
traditions  were  the  Pharisees,  who  arose  out  of  the 
schools  of  Hillel  and  Shammai,  who  lived  after  the 
times  of  the  Maccabees.  On  this  subject,  we  have  the 
testimony  of  Jerome,  who  says,  "  Shammai  and  Hillel, 
from  whom  arose  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees,  not  long 
before  the  birth  of  Christ;  the  first  of  whom  was 
called  the  Dissipator,  and  the  last.  Profane  ;  because, 

*  It  would  be  tedious  to  refer  to  all  the  texts  in  which  com- 
mands and  exhortations  are  given,  but  the  reader  may  consult 
the  following : — Deut.  x.  12,  13 ;  xi.  32 ;  xxviii.  1 ;  xxx.  20.  xi ; 
xxix.  9,  20  ;  xxxii.  45,  46.  Josh.  i.  7 ;  xxiii.  6.  2  Kings  xiv.  6. 
2  Chron.  xxv.  4  ;  xxx.  16. 


lOG  ORAL  LAW  OF  THE  JEWS 

by  their  traditions,  they  destroyed  the  law  of  God.'* 
Isai.  viii.  But  on  this  point,  the  Sadducees  were 
opposed  to  the  Pharisees,  and,  according  to  Josephus, 
rejected  all  traditions,  adhering  to  the  Scriptures 
alone.  "With  them  agreed  the  Samaritans,  and  Es- 
senes.  The  Karaites,  also,  received  the  written  word, 
and  rejected  all  traditions ;  although  in  other  respects, 
they  did  not  agree  with  the  Sadducees.  And  in  con- 
sequence of  this,  they  are  hated  and  reviled  by  the 
other  Jews,  so  that  it  is  not  without  great  dijEculty 
that  they  will  receive  a  Karaite  into  one  of  their 
synagogues.  Of  this  sect,  there  are  still  some  re- 
maining in  Poland,  Russia,  Turkey,  and  Africa. 

It  now  remains  to  mention  the  arguments  by  which 
the  Jews  attempt  to  establish  their  oral  law.  These 
shall  be  taken  from  Manasseh  ben  Iskael,*  one  of 
their  most  learned  and  liberal  men.  He  argues  from 
the  necessity  of  an  oral  law,  to  explain  many  parts  of 
the  written  law.  To  confirm  this  opinion,  he  adduced 
several  examples,  as  Exodus  xii.  2.  ^'  This  month 
shall  be  unto  you  the  beginning  of  months,  it  shall  be 
the  first  month  of  the  year."  On  this  text  he  remarks, 
*'  That  the  name  of  the  month  is  not  mentioned.  It 
is  not  said,  whether  the  months  were  lunar  or  solar, 
both  of  which  were  in  ancient  use ;  and  yet  without 
kno^ving  this,  the  precept  could  not  be  observed.  The 
same  difficulty  occurs  in  regard  to  the  other  annual 
feasts." 

^'  Another  example  is  taken  from  Lev.  xi.  13,  where 
it  is  commanded,  that  unclean  birds  shall  not  be  eaten, 
and  yet  we  are  not  furnished  with  any  criteria^  by 

•  Concil.  in  Exod. 


WITHOUT  FOUNDATION.  lOT 

whlcli  to  distinguish  the  clean  from  the  unclean,  as  in 
the  case  of  beasts.  A  third  example  is  from  Exod. 
xvi.  29,  '  Let  no  man  go  out  of  his  place  on  the 
seventh  day,'  and  yet  we  are  not  informed,  whether 
he  was  forbidden  to  leave  his  house,  his  court,  his  city, 
or  his  suburbs.  So,  in  Lev.  xxi.  12,  the  priest  is  for- 
bidden 'to  go  out  of  the  Sanctuary,'  and  no  time  is 
limited ;  but  we  know  that  the  residence  of  the  priests 
was  without  the  precincts  of  the  temple,  and  that  they 
served  there  in  rotation." 

"Again,  in  Exod.  xx.  10,  all  work  is  prohibited  on 
the  Sabbath,  but  circumcision  is  commanded  to  be  per- 
formed on  the  eighth  day ;  and  it  is  nowhere  declared, 
whether  this  rite  should  be  deferred,  when  the  eighth 
day  occurred  on  the  Sabbath.  The  same  difficulty 
exists  in  regard  to  the  slaying  of  the  paschal  lamb, 
which  was  confined  by  the  law  to  the  fourteenth  day 
of  the  month,  and  we  are  nowhere  informed  what  was 
to  be  done  when  this  was  the  Sabbath."  ''In  Deut. 
xxiv.  we  have  many  laws  relating  to  marriage,  but  we 
are  nowhere  informed  what  was  constituted  a  legal 
marriage."  "In  the  Feast  of  the  Tabernacles,  beau- 
tiful branches  of  trees  are  directed  to  be  used,  but  the 
species  of  tree  is  not  mentioned.  And  in  the  Eeast 
of  Weeks,  it  is  commanded,  '  That  on  the  fiftieth  day, 
the  wave-sheaf  should  be  offered  from  their  habita- 
tions ;'  but  where  it  should  be  offered  is  not  said. 
And,  finally,  among  prohibited  marriages,  the  wife  of 
an  uncle  is  never  mentioned." 

In  these,  and  many  other  instances,  the  learned  Jew 
observes,  that  the  law  could  only  be  understood  by 
such  oral  tradition  as  he  supposes  accompanied  the 
written  law. 


108  ORAL  LAW  OF  THE  JEWS 

Now,  in  answer  to  these  things,  we  observe  first,  in 
the  general,  that  however  many  difficulties  may  be 
started  respecting  the  precise  meaning  of  many  parts 
of  the  law,  these  can  never  prove  the  existence  of  an 
oral  law.  The  decision  on  these  points  might  have 
been  left  to  the  discretion  of  the  worshippers,  or  to  the 
common  sense  of  the  people.  Besides,  many  things 
may  appear  obscure  to  us,  which  were  not  so  to  the 
ancient  Israelites ;  so  that  they  might  have  needed  no 
oral  law  to  explain  them. 

Again,  it  is  one  thing  to  expound  a  law,  and  another 
to  add  something  to  it ;  but  the  oral  law  for  which 
they  plead,  is  not  a  mere  exposition,  but  an  addi- 
tional law. 

It  is  one  thing  to  avail  ourselves  of  traditions  to 
interpret  the  law,  and  another  to  receive  them  as 
divine  and  absolutely  necessary.  We  do  not  deny 
that  many  things  may  be  performed  according  to 
ancient  custom,  or  the  traditions  of  preceding  ages,  in 
things  indifferent;  but  we  do  deny  that  these  can  be 
considered  as  divine  or  necessary. 

But  particularly,  we  answer,  that  the  alleged  diffi- 
culty about  the  name  of  the  month  has  no  existence, 
for  it  can  be  very  well  ascertained  from  the  circum- 
stances of  the  case  ;  and  in  Exod.  xiii.  the  month  is 
named.  The  civil  year  of  the  Jews  began  with  the 
month  Tisri,  but  the  ecclesiastical  with  Abib.  There 
is,  in  fact,  no  greater  difficulty  here,  than  in  any  other 
case,  where  the  circumstance  of  time  is  mentioned. 
There  was  no  need  of  understanding  the  method  of 
reducing  solar  and  lunar  years  into  one  another,  to 
decide  this  matter.  And  if  the  Talmud  be  examined 
on  this  point,  where  the  oral  law  is  supposed  to  be  now 


WITHOUT  FOUNDATION.  109 

contained,  tliere  will  be  found  there  no  satisfactory 
method  of  computing  time.  And,  indeed,  the  Talmudic 
doctors  are  so  far  from  being  agreed  on  this  subject, 
that  anything  else  may  be  found  sooner  than  a  law 
regulating  this  matter  in  the  Talmud. 

And  in  regard  to  the  unclean  birds,  why  was  it 
necessary  to  have  criteria  to  distinguish  them,  since  a 
catalogue  of  them  is  given  in  the  very  passage  to 
which  reference  is  made  ?  And  I  would  ask,  does  the 
pretended  oral  law  contain  any  such  criteria^  to  direct 
in  this  case  ?  Nothing  less.  The  difficulty  about  the 
people  leaving  their  place  on  the  Sabbath,  and  the 
priests  leaving  the  temple,  is  really  too  trifling  to 
require  any  serious  consideration.  And  as  to  what 
should  be  done  when  the  day  of  circumcising  a  child, 
or  of  killing  the  passover,  happened  on  the  Sabbath, 
it  is  a  point  easily  decided.  These  positive  institutions 
ought  to  have  been  observed,  on  whatever  day  they 
occurred. 

The  question  respecting  matrimony  should  rather 
provoke  a  smile,  than  a  serious  answer ;  for  who  is 
ignorant  what  constitutes  a  lawful  marriage  ?  Or  who 
would  suppose  that  the  ceremonies  attendant  on  this 
transaction  ought  to  be  prescribed  by  the  law  of  God ; 
or,  that  another  law  was  requisite  for  the  purpose? 
As  well  might  our  learned  Jew  insist  on  the  necessity 
of  an  oral  law,  to  teach  us  how  we  should  eat,  drink, 
and  perform  our  daily  work. 

If  the  law  prescribed  beautiful  branches  of  trees  to 
be  used  in  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles,  what  need  was 
there  of  an  oral  law  to  teach  anything  more  ?  If  such 
branches  were  used,  it  was  of  course  indifferent 
whether  they  were  of  this  or  that  species. 
10 


110        ORAL  LAW  OF  THE  JEWS,  &C. 

Equally  futile  are  the  other  arguments  of  the  author, 
and  need  not  be  answered  in  detail. 

It  appears,  therefore,  that  there  is  no  evidence  that 
God  ever  gave  any  law  to  Moses,  distinct  from  that 
which  is  written  in  the  Pentateuch.  And  there  is  good 
reason  to  believe,  that  the  various  laws  found  in  the 
Mishna,  were  never  received  from  God,  nor  derived 
by  tradition  from  Moses ;  but  were  traditions  of  the 
fathers,  such  as  were  in  use  in  the  time  of  our  Saviour, 
who  severely  reprehends  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees,  for 
setting  aside,  and  rendering  of  no  effect,  the  word  of 
God,  by  their  unauthorized  traditions. 

The  internal  evidence  is  itself  sufficient  to  convince 
us  that  the  laws  of  the  Talmud  are  human  inventions, 
and  not  divine  institutions ;  except  that  those  circum- 
stances of  divine  worship  which  were  left  to  the  dis- 
cretion of  the  people,  and  which  were  regulated  by 
custom,  may  be  often  found  preserved  in  this  immense 
work. 


PART   II. 


THE  CANON  OF  THE   NEW  TESTAMENT, 


(111) 


CANON   OF  THE   NEW  TESTAMENT.  113 


SECTION  I. 


METHOD    OP    SETTLINO   THE    CANON    OP    THE    NEW    TESTA- 
MENT. 

After  what  has  "been  said,  in  the  former  part  of  this 
work,  respecting  the  importance  of  settling  the  Canon 
on  correct  principles,  it  will  be  unnecessary  to  add  any- 
thing here  on  that  subject,  except  to  say,  that  this  in- 
quiry cannot  be  less  interesting  in  regard  to  the  Old 
Testament  than  to  the  New.  It  is  a  subject  which 
calls  for  our  utmost  diligence  and  impartiality.  It  is 
one  which  we  cannot  neglect  with  a  good  conscience ; 
for  the  inquiry  is  nothing  less  than  to  ascertain  what 
revelation  God  has  made  to  us,  and  where  it  is  to  be 
found. 

As  to  the  proper  method  of  settling  the  Canon  of 
the  New  Testament,  the  same  course  must  be  pursued 
as  has  been  done  in  respect  to  the  Old.  We  must 
have  recourse  to  authentic  history,  and  endeavour  to 
ascertain  what  books  were  received  as  genuine  by  the 
primitive  church  and  early  Fathers.  The  contem- 
poraries, and  immediate  successors  of  the  apostles,  are 
the  most  competent  witnesses  in  this  case.  If,  among 
these,  there  is  found  to  have  been  a  general  agree- 
ment, as  to  what  books  were  canonical,  it  will  go  far 
to  satisfy  us  respecting  the  true  Canon ;  for  it  cannot 
be  supposed,  that  they  could  easily  be  deceived  in  a 
10* 


114  METHOD   OF   SETTLING   THE   CANON 

matter  of  this  sort.  A  general  consent  of  the  early- 
Fathers,  and  of  the  primitive  church,  therefore,  fur- 
nishes conclusive  evidence  on  this  point,  and  is  that 
species  of  evidence  which  is  least  liable  to  fallacy  or 
abuse.  The  learned  HuET,  has,  therefore,  assumed  it 
as  a  maxim,  "  That  every  book  is  genuine,  which 

WAS  ESTEEMED  GENUINE  BY  THOSE  WHO  LIVED  NEAREST 
TO    THE    TIME    WHEN  IT    WAS    WRITTEN,    AND    BY    THE 

AGES  FOLLOWING,  IN  A  CONTINUED  SERIES."  *  The  rea- 
sonableness of  this  rule  will  appear  more  evident,  when 
we  consider  the  great  esteem  with  which  these  books 
were  at  first  received ;  the  constant  public  reading  of 
them  in  the  churches,  and  the  early  version  of  them 
into  other  lanoruaojes. 

The  high  claims  of  the  Romish  church,  in  regard  to 
the  authority  of  fixing  the  Canon,  have  already  been 
disproved,  as  it  relates  to  the  books  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment; and  the  same  arguments  apply  with  their  full 
force  to  the  Canon  of  the  New  Testament,  and  need 
not  be  repeated.  It  may  not  be  amiss,  however,  to 
licar  from  distinguished  writers  of  that  communion, 
what  their  real  opinion  is  on  this  subject.  Heuman 
asserts,  "  That  the  sacred  Scriptures,  without  the 
authority  of  the  church,  have  no  more  authority  than 
iEsop's  Fables."  And  Baillie,  "  That  he  would 
give  no  more  credit  to  Matthew  than  to  Livy,  unless 
the  church  obliged  him."  To  the  same  purpose  speak 
PiGHius,  EcKius,  Bellarmine,  and  many  others  of 
their  most  distinguished  writers.  By  the  authority 
of  the  church,  they  understand  a  power  lodged  in  the 
church  of  Rome,  to  determine  what  books  shall  be 


*  Demonstratio  Evanj;. 


OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  115 

received  as  the  word  of  God ;  than  which  it  is  scarcely 
possible  to  conceive  of  anything  more  absurd. 

In  avoiding  this  extreme,  some  Protestants  have 
verged  towards  the  opposite,  and  have  asserted,  that 
the  only,  or  principal  evidence  of  the  canonical  au- 
thority of  the  sacred  Scriptures  is,  their  internal  evi- 
dence. Even  some  churches  went  so  far  as  to  insert 
this  opinion  in  their  public  confessions.* 

Now  it  ought  not  to  be  doubted,  that  the  internal 
evidence  of  the  Scriptures  is  exceedingly  strong ;  and 
that  when  the  mind  of  the  reader  is  truly  illuminated, 
it  derives  from  this  source  the  most  unwavering  con- 
viction of  their  truth  and  divine  authority;  but  that 
every  sincere  Christian  should  be  able,  in  all  cases,  by 
this  internal  light,  to  distinguish  between  canonical 
books  and  such  as  are  not,  is  surely  no  very  safe  or 
reasonable  opinion.  Suppose  that  a  thousand  books 
of  various  kinds,  including  the  canonical,  were  placed 
before  any  sincere  Christian,  would  he  be  able,  without 
mistake,  to  select  from  this  mass  the  twenty-seven 
books  of  which  the  New  Testament  is  composed,  if  he 
had  nothing  to  guide  him  but  the  internal  evidence  ? 
Would  every  such  person  be  able  at  once  to  determine, 
whether  the  book  of  JEedesiastes,  or  of  Ucclesiasticus, 
belonged  to  the  Canon  of  the  Old  Testament,  by  inter- 
nal evidence  alone  ?  It  is  certain,  that  the  influence 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  is  necessary  to  produce  a  true  faith 
in  the  word  of  God ;  but  to  make  this  the  only  crite- 
rion by  which  to  judge  of  the  canonical  authority  of  a 
book  is  certainly  liable  to  strong  objections.  The 
tendency  of  this  doctrine  is  to  enthusiasm,  and  the 
consequence  of  acting  upon  it,  would  be  to  unsettle, 
*  See  the  Confession  of  the  Reformed  Galilean  Church. 


116  METnOD    OF   SETTLING   THE    CANON 

rather  than  establish,  the  Canon  of  Holy  Scripture ; 
for  it  would  be  strange,  if  some  persons,  without  any 
other  guidance  than  their  own  spiritual  taste,  would 
not  pretend  that  other  books  besides  those  long  re- 
ceived were  canonical,  or  would  not  be  disposed  to  reject 
some  part  of  these.  If  this  evidence  were  as  infallible 
as  some  would  have  it  to  be,  then  the  authenticity  of 
every  disputed  text,  as  well  as  the  canonical  authority 
of  every  book,  might  be  ascertained  by  it.  But,  it  is 
a  fact,  that  some  eminently  pious  men  doubted  for  a 
while  respecting  the  canonical  authority  of  some  genu- 
ine books  of  the  New  Testament. 

And  if  the  internal  e\'idence  were  the  only  criterion 
of  canonical  authority  to  which  we  could  resort,  there 
would  remain  no  possibility  of  convincing  any  person 
of  the  inspiration  of  a  book,  unless  he  could  perceive 
in  it  the  internal  evidence  of  a  divine  origin.  In 
many  cases  this  species  of  evidence  can  scarcely  be 
said  to  exist,  as  when  for  wise  purposes  God  directs  or 
inspires  a  prophet  to  record  genealogical  tables ;  or 
even  in  the  narration  of  common  events,  I  do  not  see 
how  it  can  be  determined  from  internal  evidence,  that 
the  history  is  written  by  inspiration ;  for  the  only  cir- 
cumstance in  which  an  inspired  narrative  differs  from 
a  faithful  human  history,  is  that  the  one  is  infallible, 
and  the  other  is  not;  but  the  existence  of  this  infalli- 
bility, or  the  absence  of  it,  is  not  apparent  from  read- 
ing the  books.  Both  accounts  may  appear  consistent, 
and  it  is  only,  or  chiefly,  by  external  evidence  that  we 
can  know  that  one  of  them  is  inspired.  Who  could 
undertake  to  say,  tliat  from  internal  evidence  alone, 
he  could  determine  that  the  book  of  Esther,  or  the 
Chronicles,   were  written  by  inspiration  ?      Besides, 


OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  117 

some  books  are  obscure  and  not  easily  understood ; 
now,  how  could  any  one  discern  the  internal  evidence 
of  a  book,  the  meaning  of  which  he  did  not  yet  un- 
derstand ? 

The  evidence  arising  from  a  general  view  of  the 
Scriptures,  collectively,  is  most  convincing,  but  is  not 
so  well  adapted  to  determine  whether  some  one  book, 
considered  separately,  was  certainly  written  by  divine 
inspiration. 

It  is  necessary,  therefore,  to  proceed  to  our  destined 
point  in  a  more  circuitous  way.  We  must  be  at  the 
pains  to  examine  into  the  history  of  the  Canon,  and, 
as  was  before  said,  to  ascertain  what  books  were 
esteemed  canonical  by  all  those  who  had  the  best  op- 
portunity of  judging  of  this  matter;  and  when  the 
internal  evidence  is  found  corroborating  the  external, 
the  two,  combined,  may  produce  a  degree  of  conviction 
which  leaves  no  room  to  desire  any  stronger  evidence. 

The  question  to  be  decided  is  a  matter  of  fact.  It 
is  an  inquiry  respecting  the  real  authors  of  the  books 
of  the  New  Testament,  whether  they  were  written  by 
the  persons  whose  names  they  bear,  or  by  others  under 
their  names.  The  inspiration  of  these  books,  though 
closely  allied  to  this  subject,  is  not  now  the  object  of 
inquiry.  The  proper  method  of  determining  a  matter 
of  fact,  evidently  is  to  have  recourse  to  those  persons 
who  were  witnesses  of  it,  or  who  received  their  infor- 
mation from  others  who  were  witnesses.  It  is  only  in 
this  way  that  we  know  that  Homer,  Horace,  Virgil, 
Livy,  and  Tully,  wrote  the  books  which  now  go  under 
their  names. 

The  early  Christians  pursued  this  method  of  deter- 
mining what  books  were  canonical.     They  searched 


118  METHOD   OF   SETTLING   THE   CANON 

into  the  records  of  the  church,  before  their  time,  and 
from  these  ascertained  what  books  should  be  received, 
as  belonging  to  the  sacred  volume.  They  appeal  to 
that  certain  and  universal  tradition,  which  attested  the 
genuineness  of  these  books.  Iren^us,  Tertullian, 
EusEBius,  Cyril,  and  Augustine,  have  all  made  use 
of  this  argument,  in  establishing  the  Canon  of  the  New 
Testament. 

The  question  is  often  asked.  When  was  the  Canon  of 
the  New  Testament  constituted,  and  by  what  authority  ? 
Many  persons  who  write  and  speak  on  this  subject, 
appear  to  entertain  a  wrong  impression  in  regard  to 
it ;  as  if  the  books  of  the  New  Testament  could  not  be 
of  authority,  until  they  were  sanctioned  by  some  Eccle- 
siastical Council,  or  by  some  publicly  expressed  opinion 
of  the  Fathers  of  the  church  ;  and  as  if  any  portion  of 
their  authority  depended  on  their  being  collected  into 
one  volume.  But  the  truth  is,  that  every  one  of  these 
books  was  of  authority,  as  far  as  known,  from  the 
moment  of  its  publication  ;  and  its  right  to  a  place  in 
the  Canon,  is  not  derived  from  the  sanction  of  any 
church  or  council,  but  from  the  fact,  that  it  was  written 
by  inspiration.  And  the  appeal  to  testimony  is  not  to 
prove  that  any  council  of  bishops,  or  others,  gave  sanc- 
tion to  the  book,  but  to  show  that  it  is  indeed  the 
genuine  work  of  Matthew,  or  John,  or  Peter,  or  Paul, 
who  we  know  were  inspired. 

The  books  of  the  New  Testament  were,  therefore, 
of  full  authority,  before  they  were  collected  into  one 
volimie;  and  it  would  have  made  no  diiference  if  they 
had  never  been  included  in  one  volume,  but  had  re- 
tained that  separate  form  in  which  they  were  first  pub- 
lished.    And  it  is  by  no  means  certain,  that  these 


OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  119 

books  were,  at  a  very  early  period,  bound  in  one 
volume.  As  far  as  we  have  any  testimony  on  the 
subject,  the  probability  is,  that  it  was  more  customary 
to  include  them  in  two  volumes:  one  of  which  was 
called  the  G-osjmI,  and  the  other,  the  Apostles. 
Some  of  the  oldest  manuscripts  of  the  New  Testament 
extant,  appear  to  have  been  put  up  in  this  form ;  and 
the  Fathers  often  refer  to  the  Scriptures  of  the  New 
Testament,  under  these  two  titles.  The  question, 
When  was  the  Canon  constituted  ?  admits  therefore  of 
no  other  proper  answer  than  this, — that  as  soon  as  the 
last  book  of  the  New  Testament  was  written  and  pub- 
lished, the  Canon  was  completed.  But  if  the  question 
relates  to  the  time  when  these  books  were  collected 
together,  and  published  in  a  single  volume,  or  in  two 
volumes,  it  admits  of  no  definite  answer ;  for  those 
churches  which  were  situated  nearest  to  the  place 
where  any  particular  books  were  published,  would,  of 
course,  obtain  copies  much  earlier  than  churches  in  a 
remote  part  of  the  world.  For  a  considerable  period, 
the  collection  of  these  books,  in  each  church,  must 
have  been  necessarily  incomplete ;  for  it  would  take 
some  time  to  send  to  the  church,  or  people,  with  whom 
the  autographs  were  deposited,  and  to  have  fair  copies 
transcribed.  This  necessary  process  will  also  account 
for  the  fact,  that  some  of  the  smaller  books  were  not 
received  by  the  churches  so  early,  nor  so  universally, 
as  the  larger.  The  solicitude  of  the  churches  to  pos- 
sess immediately  the  more  extensive  and  important 
books  of  the  New  Testament,  would,  doubtless,  induce 
them  to  make  a  great  exertion  to  acquire  copies ;  but, 
probably,  the  smaller  would  not  be  so  much  spoken  of, 
nor  would  there  be  so  strong  a  desire  to  obtain  them, 


120  METEOD   OF   SETTLING  THE   CANON 

without  delay.  Considering  how  difficult  it  is  now, 
witli  all  our  improvements  in  the  typographical  art,  to 
multiply  copies  of  the  Scriptures  with  sufficient  rapi- 
dity, it  is  truly  wonderful,  how  so  many  churches  as 
were  founded  dui'ing  the  first  century,  to  say  nothing 
of  individuals,  could  all  be  supplied  with  copies  of  the 
New  Testament,  when  there  was  no  speedier  method 
of  producing  them  than  by  writing  every  letter  with 
the  pen!  "The  pen  of  a  ready  writer"  must  then, 
indeed,  have  been  of  immense  value. 

The  idea  entertained  by  some,  especially  by  DoD- 
WELL,  that  these  books  lay  for  a  long  time  locked  up 
in  the  coffers  of  the  churches  to  which  they  were  ad- 
dressed, and  totally  unknown  to  the  world,  is  in  itself 
most  improbable,  and  is  repugnant  to  all  the  testimony 
which  exists  on  the  subject.  Even  as  early  as  the 
time  when  Peter  wrote  his  second  Epistle,  the  writings 
of  Paul  were  in  the  hands  of  the  churches,  and  were 
classed  with  the  other  Scriptures.*  And  the  citations 
from  these  books  by  the  earliest  Christian  writers, 
living  in  different  countries,  demonstrate,  that  from 
the  time  of  their  publication,  they  were  sought  after 
with  avidity,  and  were  widely  dispersed.  How  intense 
the  interest  which  the  first  Christians  felt  in  the 
writings  of  the  apostles  can  scarcely  be  conceived  by 
us,  who  have  been  familiar  with  these  books  from  our 
earliest  years.  How  solicitous  would  they  be,  for  ex- 
ample, who  had  never  seen  Paul,  but  had  heard  of  his 
wonderful  conversion,  and  extraordinary  labours  and 
gifts,  to  read  his  writings  !  And  probably  they  who 
had  enjoyed  the  high  privilege  of  hearing  this  apostle 
preach,  would  not  be  less  desirous  of  reading  his 
*  2  Pet.  iii.  14,  15. 


OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT.  121 

Epistles.  As  we  know,  from  the  nature  of  the  case, 
as  well  as  from  testimony,  that  many  uncertain  ac- 
counts of  Christ's  discourses  and  miracles  had  obtained 
circulation,  how  greatly  would  the  primitive  Christians 
rejoice  to  obtain  an  authentic  history  from  the  pen  of 
an  apostle,  or  from  one  who  wrote  precisely  what  was 
dictated  by  an  apostle  !  We  need  no  longer  wonder, 
therefore,  that  every  church  should  wish  to  possess  a 
collection  of  the  writings  of  the  apostles ;  and  knowing 
them  to  be  the  productions  of  inspired  men,  they  would 
want  no  further  sanction  of  their  authority.  All  that 
was  requisite  was,  to  be  certain  that  the  book  was 
indeed  written  by  the  apostle  whose  name  it  bore. 
And  this  leads  me  to  observe,  that  some  things  in 
Paul's  Epistles,  which  seem  to  common  readers  to  be 
of  no  importance,  were  of  the  utmost  consequence. 
Such  as,  "I,  Tertius,  who  wrote  this  epistle,"  &c. — 
^'The  salutation,  with  mine  own  hand." — "  So  I  write 
in  every  epistle." — "You  see  how  large  a  letter  I  have 
written  unto  you  with  mine  own  hand." — "The  saluta- 
tion by  the  hand  of  me,  Paul." — "The  salutation  of 
Paul  with  mine  own  hand,  which  is  the  token  in 
every  Epistle."*  This  apostle  commonly  employed 
an  amanuensis;  but  that  the  churches  to  which  he 
wrote  might  have  the  assurance  of  the  genuineness  of 
his  Epistles,  from  seeing  his  own  hand-writing,  he  con- 
stantly wrote  the  salutation  himself;  so  much  care 
was  taken  to  have  these  sacred  writings  well  authenti- 
cated, on  their  first  publication.  And  on  the  same 
account  it  was,  that  he  and  the  other  apostles  were  so 
particular  in  giving  the  names,  and  the  characters,  of 
those  who  were  the  bearers  of  their  Epistles.  And  it 
, ,  *  Rom.  xvi.  22.  1  Cor.  xvi.  21.  Gal.  vi.  11.  2  Thess.  iii.  17. 
11 


122  METHOD   OF   SETTLING   THE   CANON 

seems,  that  they  were  always  committed  to  the  care 
of  men  of  high  estimation  in  the  church ;  and  com- 
monly, more  than  one  appears  to  have  been  intrusted 
with  this  important  commission. 

If  it  be  inquired,  what  became  of  the  autographs  of 
these  sacred  books,  and  why  they  were  not  preserved ; 
since  this  would  have  prevented  all  uncertainty  re- 
specting the  true  reading,  and  would  have  relieved  the 
Biblical  critic  from  a  large  share  of  labour ;  it  is 
sufficient  to  answer,  that  nothing  different  has  oc- 
curred, in  relation  to  these  autographs,  from  that 
which  has  happened  to  all  other  ancient  writings.  No 
man  can  produce  the  autograph  of  any  book  as  old  as 
the  New  Testament,  unless  it  has  been  preserved  in 
some  extraordinary  way,  as  in  the  case  of  the  manu- 
scripts of  Herculaneum ;  neither  could  it  be  supposed, 
that  in  the  midst  of  such  vicissitudes,  revolutions,  and 
persecutions,  as  the  Christian  church  endured,  this 
object  could  have  been  secured  by  anything  short  of 
a  miracle.  And  God  knew,  that  by  a  superintending 
providence  over  the  sacred  Scriptures,  they  could  be 
transmitted  with  sufficient  accuracy,  by  means  of 
apographs,  to  the  most  distant  generations.  Indeed, 
there  is  reason  to  believe,  that  the  Christians  of  early 
times  were  so  absorbed  and  impressed  with  the  glory 
of  the  truths  revealed,  that  they  gave  themselves  little 
concern  about  the  mere  vehicle  by  which  they  were 
communicated.  They  had  matters  of  such  deep  in- 
terest, and  so  novel,  before  their  eyes,  that  they  had 
neither  time,  nor  inclination,  for  the  minutiiTe  of  criti- 
cism. It  may  be,  therefore,  that  they  did  not  set  so 
liigh  a  vulue  on  the  possession  of  the  autograph  of  an 
inspired  book  as  we  should,  but  considered  a  copy, 


OF  THE   NEW  TESTAMENT.  123 

made  with  scrupulous  fidelity,  as  equally  valuable  with 
the  original.  And  God  may  have  suffered  these  auto- 
graphs of  the  sacred  writings  to  perish,  lest  in  process 
of  time,  they  should  .  have  become  idolized,  like  the 
brazen  serpent ;  or  lest  men  should  be  led  supersti- 
tiously  to  venerate  the  mere  parchment  and  ink,  and 
form  and  letters,  employed  by  an  apostle.  Certainly, 
the  history  of  the  church  renders  such  an  idea  far 
from  being  improbable. 

But,  although  little  is  said  about  the  originals  of  the 
apostles'  writings,  we  have  a  testimony  in  Tertullian, 
that  the  Authentic  Letters  of  the  apostles  might 
be  seen  by  any  that  would  take  the  pains  to  go  to  the 
churches  to  which  they  w^ere  addressed.  Some,  in- 
deed, think  that  Tertullian  does  not  mean  to  refer  to 
the  autographs,  but  to  authentic  copies ;  but  why  then 
send  the  inquirer  to  the  churches  to  which  the  Epistles 
were  addressed  ?  Had  not  other  churches,  all  over  the 
world,  authentic  copies  of  these  Epistles  also  ?  There 
seems  to  be  good  reason,  therefore,  for  believing,  that 
the  autographs,  or  original  letters  of  the  apostles,  were 
preserved  by  the  churches  to  which  they  were  ad- 
dressed, in  the  time  of  Tertullian.* 

But  although  the  autographs  of  the  books  of  the 
New  Testament  are  not  extant,  we  have  beautiful 
copies  of  the  whole  penned  as  early  as  the  fourth  or 
fifth  century,  and  some  think  that  our  oldest  manu- 
scripts of  the  New  Testament  have  a  still  earlier 
origin;  and  we  have  versions  which  were  made  at  a 
period  still  earlier,  so  that  we  have  lost  nothing  by  the 
disappearance  of  the  autographs  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament. 

*  See  Note  C. 


124  CATALOGUES   OF   THE   BOOKS 


SECTION  II. 


CATALOGUES    OF    THE    BOOKS    OF    THE   NEW    TESTAMENT 

CANONICAL  BOOKS  ALONE  CITED   AS   AUTHORITY   BY    THE 
FATHERS,  AND  READ  IN  THE  CHURCHES  AS  SCRIPTURE. 

Haying  declared  our  purpose,  to  place  the  settling  of 
the  Canon  of  the  New  Testament  on  the  footing  of 
authentic  testimony,  we  will  now  proceed  to  adduce 
our  authorities,  and  shall  begin  with  an  examination 
of  the  ancient  catalogues  of  the  New  Testament. 

The  slightest  attention  to  the  works  of  the  Fathers 
will  convince  any  one  that  the  writings  of  the  apostles 
were  held,  from  the  beginning,  in  the  highest  estima- 
tion; that  great  pains  were  taken  to  distinguish  the 
genuine  productions  of  these  inspired  men  from  all 
other  books ;  that  they  were  sought  out  with  uncom- 
mon diligence,  and  read  with  profound  attention  and 
veneration,  not  only  in  private,  but  publicly  in  the 
churches  ;  and  that  they  arc  cited  and  referred  to, 
universally,  as  decisive  on  every  point  of  docti'ine,  and 
as  authoritative  standards  for  the  regulation  of  faith 
and  practice. 

This  being  the  state  of  the  case,  when  the  books  of 
the  New  Testament  were  communicated  to  the  churches, 
we  are  enabled,  in  regard  to  most  of  them,  to  produce 
testimony  of  the  most  satisfactory  kind,  that  they 
were  admitted  into  the  Canon,  and  received  as  inspired, 


OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT.  125 

bj  the  universal  consent  of  Christians  in  every  part 
of  the  world.  And  as  to  those  few  books,  concerning 
which  some  persons  entertained  doubts,  it  can  be 
shown,  that  as  soon  as  their  claims  were  fully  and  im- 
partially investigated,  they  also  were  received  with 
universal  consent ;  and  that  other  books,  however 
excellent  as  human  compositions,  were  never  put  upon 
a  level  with  the  canonical  books  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment ;  that  spurious  writings,  under  the  names  of  the 
apostles,  were  promptly  and  decisively  rejected,  and 
that  the  churches  were  repeatedly  warned  against  such 
apocryphal  books. 

To  do  justice  to  this  subject,  will  require  some  de- 
tail, which  may  appear  dry  to  the  reader,  but  should 
be  interesting  to  every  person  who  wishes  to  know  as- 
suredly, that  what  he  receives  as  sacred  Scripture,  is 
no  imposture,  but  the  genuine,  authentic  productions 
of  those  inspired  men,  whom  Christ  appointed  to  be 
his  witnesses  to  the  world,  and  to  whom  was  com- 
mitted the  sacred  deposit  of  divine  truth,  intended  for 
the  instruction  and  government  of  the  church  in  all 
future  ages. 

In  exhibiting  the  evidence  of  the  canonical  autho- 
rity of  these  books,  we  shall  first  attend  to  some  gene- 
ral considerations,  which  relate  to  the  whole  volume, 
and  then  adduce  testimony  in  favour  of  each  book  now 
included  in  the  Canon.  And  here,  as  in  the  case  of 
the  Old  Testament,  we  find  that  at  a  very  early  period, 
catalogues  of  these  books  were  published,  by  most  of 
the  distinguished  Fathers  whose  writings  have  come 
down  to  us ;  and  that  the  same  has  been  done,  also,  by 
several  councils,  whose  decrees  are  still  extant. 

These  catalogues  are,  for  the  most  part,  perfectly 
11* 


126  CATALOGUES    OF   TUE    BOOKS 

harmonious.     In  a  few  of  tliem,  some  books  now  ir 
tlie  Canon  are  omitted,  for  which  omission  a  satisfac- 
tory reason  can  commonly  be  assigned.     In   the  first 
circuhition  of  the  sacred  Scriptm-es,  there  was  great 
need  of  such  lists  ;  as  the  distant  churches  and  com- 
mon Christians  were  liable  to  be  imposed  on  by  spuri- 
ous writings,  which  seem  to  have  abounded  in  those 
times.     It  was,  therefore,  a  most  important  part  of 
the  instruction  given  to  Christians,  by  their  spiritual 
guides,  to  inform  them  accurately,  what  books  belonged 
to  the  Canon.     Great  pains  were  taken,  also,  to  know 
the  truth  on  this  subject.     Pious  bishops,  for  this  single 
purpose,  travelled  into  Judea,  and  remained  there  for 
some  time,  that  they  might  learn,  accurately,  every  cir- 
cumstance relative  to  the  authenticity  of  these  writings. 
1.  The  first  regular  catalogue  of  the  books  of  the  New 
Testament,  which  we  find  on  record,  is  by  Origen, 
whose  extensive  Biblical  knowledge    highly  qualified 
him  to  judge  correctly  in  this  case.     He  had  not  only 
read  much,  but  travelled  extensively,  and  resided  a 
great  part  of  his  life  on  the  confines  of  Judea,  in  a 
situation  favourable  to  accurate  information  from  every 
part  of  the   church,  where  any  of  these  books  were 
originally   published.       Origen   lived    and   flourished 
al)out  one  hundred  years  after  the  death  of  the  apostle 
John,     lie  was,  therefore,  near  enough  to  the  time  of 
tlie  publication  of  these  books,  to  obtain  the  most  cer- 
tiiiii  iiil'orniation  of  their  authoi's.      Most  of  the  orim- 
iial    writings    of   this    great    and    learned    man    have 
perislied,  but  his  catalogue  of  the  books   of  the  New 
Testament  has  been  preserved    by  Eusebius,   in    his 
Ecclesiastical  History.*     It  was  contained  in  Origen's 
*  Lib.  vi.  c.  25. 


OF   THE    NEW   TESTAMENT.  127 

Homilies  on  tlie  gospel  of  Matthew  ;  and  was  repeated 
in  his  Homilies  on  the  gospel  of  John. 

In  this  catalogue  he  mentions  the  four  GfosjJels,  the 
Acts  of  the  Apostles,  foui'teen  Epistles  of  Paul,  two 
of  Peter,  three  of  John,  and  the  Booh  of  Revelation. 
This  enumeration  includes  all  the  present  Canon,  ex- 
cept the  Epistles  of  James  and  Jude,  but  these  were 
omitted  by  accident,  not  design ;  for  in  other  parts  of 
his  writings,  he  acknowledges  these  Epistles  as  a  part 
of  the  Canon.  And  while  Origen  furnishes  us  with 
so  full  a  catalogue  of  the  books  now  in  the  Canon,  he 
inserts  no  others,  which  proves,  that  in  his  time  the 
Canon  was  well  settled  among  the  learned ;  and  that 
the  distinction  between  inspired  writings  and  human 
compositions  was  as  clearly  marked,  as  at  any  subse- 
quent period. 

In  the  work  entitled,  Apostolical  Constitutions, 
ascribed  to  Clement  of  Rome,  there  is  a  catalogue 
of  the  books  of  the  New  Testament ;  but  as  this  work 
is  not  genuine,  and  of  an  uncertain  author  and  age,  I 
will  not  make  use  of  it. 

There  has  been  preserved  a  fragment  of  a  very 
ancient  writing  on  the  Canon,  ascribed  to  Caius  the 
presbyter,  which  may  be  seen  in  RoutKs  Pelicpiide, 
an  abridgment  of  which  is  here  given  in  a  literal  ver- 
sion from  the  Latin.  What  is  said  by  the  author  con- 
cerning the  first  two  evangelists  is  lost.  The  fragment 
commences  by  saying,  "  The  third  is  the  gospel  ac- 
cording to  Luke.     Luke  was  that  physician  who,  after 

the  ascension,  consorted  with  Paul Although 

he  had  never  seen  Christ  in  the  flesh,  yet  having 
acquired  a  knowledge  of  his  life,  he  commences  his 
narrative  from  the  nativity  of  John. 


128  CATALOGUES   OF   THE   BOOKS 

"  The  fourth  gospel  was  written  by  John,  one  of  the 
disciples.  To  his  fellow  disciples,  and  to  the  bishops, 
who  exhorted  him  [to  write,]  he  said,  '  Fast  with  me 
three  days,  from  this  day,  and  whatever  shall  be  re- 
vealed to  any  of  us,  we  will  declare  to  one  another/ 
The  same  night  it  was  revealed  to  Andrew,  that  John, 
under  his  own  name  should  describe  all  things,  so  that 
they  might  be  recognized  by  all.  And  so,  though 
various  elements  are  taught  in  the  several  gospels, 
yet  the  faith  of  believers  is  not  diverse,  since  with  one 
pervading  spirit  all  things  are  declared  by  all  concern- 
ing the  nativity,  the  passover,  the  resurrection,  and 
concerning  his  conversation  with  his  disciples,  and  his 
double  advent ;  the  first,  when  he  was  seen  in  a  state 

of  humiliation in  the  second,  with  glorious 

regal  power,  which  is  yet  future.  .  .  .  But  the  Acts 
of  all  the  Apostles,  Luke  to  Theophilus  has  compre- 
hended in  a  single  book.  The  Epistles  of  Paul  de- 
clare to  all  who  wish  to  know,  on  what  account,  and 
from  what  place  they  were  written.  Paul,  following 
the  example  of  his  predecessor  John,  wrote  Epistles  to 
the  following  seven  named  churches : — First,  to  the 
Corinthians ;  the  second  to  the  EpJiesians ;  the  third 
to  the  Philipjyians ;  the  fourth  to  the  Colossians ;  the 
fifth  to  the  Galatians;  the  sixth  to  the  Tlieasalonians ; 
and  tlie  seventh  to  the  Romans.  But  to  the  Covin- 
tliians  and  the  T/wssalonians,  he  wrote,  for  the  sake 
of  correction,  a  second  time.  One  church  is  known, 
diffused  througli  tlic  whole  world. 

"And  John,  in  the  Apocalypse,  although  he  addressed 
himself  to  seven  churches,  yet  speaks  to  all.  More- 
over, there  is  one  [epistle]  to  VJiilcmon ;  one  to  TituSy 
and  two  to  Timothij,  on  account  of  his  affection  and 


OF    THE   NEW   TESTAMENT.    .  129 

care ;  wlilch,  however,  are  in  honour  of  the  Catholic 
Church,  and  sanctified  to  the  ordaining  ecclesiastical 
discipline. 

"  There  is  one  [epistle  of  Paul]  carried  about  to  the 
Laodiceans,  and  one  to  the  Alexandrians  under  the  name 
of  Paul,  forged  to  support  the  heresy  of  Marcion,  and 
many  others  which  ought  not  to  be  received  into  the 
Catholic  Church.  For  it  is  unsuitable  that  gall  should 
be  mixed  with  honey.  Indeed,  the  Epistle  of  Jude 
and  two  [smaller  epistles]  under  the  name  of  John  are 
in  the  possession  of  the  church.  Also  the  book  of  Wis- 
dom, written  by  the  friends  of  Solomon  in  honour  of  him. 
There  is  an  Apocalypse  of  John,  and  one  of  Peter ; 
the  church  receives  only  the  former,  and  some  are  un- 
willing that  this  should  be  read  in  the  church." 

From  this  ancient  fragment  of  the  second  century, 
we  have  nearly  a  complete  catalogue  of  the  canoni- 
cal books  of  the  New  Testament,  and  the  rejection 
of  some  spurious  books  which,  even  at  that  early 
age,  were  put  into  circulation.  This  fragment 
is  not  noticed  by  Lardner.  It  was  discovered 
by  Muratorius,  and  has  been  largely  commented 
on  by  several  learned  authors.  Muratorius  ascribes 
it  to  the  presbyter  Caius ;  but  others  to  Papias. 
Routh  considers  it  altogether  uncertain  who  is  the 
author ;  but  all  agree  in  referring  it  to  the  second 
century. 

The  catalogue  ascribed  to  the  Council  of  Nice,  is 
not  genuine,  and  is  connected  with  a  story  which  bears 
every  mark  of  superstitious  credulity.*     This,  there- 

*  The  story  is  briefly  this.    The  Fathers  of  the  Council  of  Nice 
put  all  the  books  which  claimed  a  place  in  the  sacred  Canon  un- 


180  CATALOGUES    OF  THE    BOOKS 

fore,  shall  be  likewise  omitted.  "We  stand  in  no  need 
of  suspicious  testimony  on  this  subject.  Witnesses  of 
the  most  undoubted  veracity,  and  distinguished  intelli- 
gence, can  be  found  in  every  successive  age. 

2.  The  next  catalogue  of  the  books  of  the  New 
Testament  to  which  I  will  refer,  is  that  of  Eusebius, 
the  learned  historian  of  the  church ;  to  whose  dili- 
gence and  fidelity,  in  collecting  ecclesiastical  facts,  we 
are  more  indebted,  than  to  the  labours  of  all  other 
men,  for  that  period  which  intervened  between  the 
days  of  the  apostles  and  his  own  times.  Eusebius 
may  be  considered  as  giving  his  testimony  about  one 
hundred  years  after  Obigen.  His  catalogue  may  be 
seen  in  his  Ecclesiastical  History.*  In  it,  he  enumer- 
ates every  book  which  we  have  now  in  the  Canon,  and 
no  others  ;  but  he  mentions  that  the  Epistle  of  James, 
the  second  of  Peter,  and  second  and  third  of  John, 
were  doubted  of  by  some  ;  and  that  the  Revelation  was 
rejected  by  some,  and  received  by  others;  but  Eusebius 
himself  declares  it  to  be  his  opinion,  that  it  should  be 
received  without  doubt. 

There  is  no  single  witness  among  the  whole  number 
of  ecclesiastical  writers,  who  was  more  competent  to 
give  accurate  information  on  this  subject  than  Euse- 
bius. He  had  spent  a  great  part  of  his  life  in  search- 
ing into  the  antiquities  of  the  Christian  church ;  and 

der  the  communion  table  of  the  church,  and  then  prayed  that 
Biich  of  them  as  were  inspired  might  be  found  uppermost,  and 
the  apocryphal  below;  whereupon,  the  event  occurred  agreeably 
to  their  wishes;  and  thus  a  clear  line  of  distinction  was  made  be- 
tween canonical  books  and  such  as  were  not  canonical.  This 
story  is  related  in  the  Synodicon  of  Popus,  an  obscure  writer, 
and  is  undeserving  of  the  smallest  credit. 
*  Euseb.  Ecc.  Hist.  lib.  iii.  c.  25.  comp.  with  c.  3. 


OF   THE  NEW   TESTAMENT.  131 

he  had  an  intimate  acquaintance  with  all  the  records 
relating  to  the  ecclesiastical  affairs,  many  of  which 
are  now  lost ;  and  almost  the  only  information  which 
we  have  of  them  has  been  transmitted  to  us  by  this 
diligent  compiler.     (  See  Appendix  Note  D. ) 

3.  Athanasius,  so  well  known  for  his  writings  and 
his  sufferings  in  defence  of  the  divinity  of  our  Saviour, 
in  his  Festal  Epistle,  and  in  his  Synopsis  of  Scripture, 
has  left  a  catalogue  of  the  books  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, which  iperft^rtlj  agrees  with  the  Canon  now  in 
use. 

4.  Cyril,  in  his  Catechetical  work,  has  also  given 
us  a  catalogue,  perfectly  agreeing  with  ours,  except 
that  he  omits  the  book  of  Revelation.  Why  that  book 
was  so  often  left  out  of  the  ancient  catalogues  and 
collections  of  the  Scriptures,  shall  be  mentioned  here- 
after. Athanasius  and  Cyril  were  contemporary  with 
Eusebius ;  the  latter,  however,  may  more  properly  be 
considei'ed  as  twenty  or  thirty  years  later. 

5.  Then,  a  little  after  the  middle  of  the  fourth  cen- 
tury, we  have  the  testimony  of  all  the  bishops  assem- 
bled in  the  Council  of  Laodicea.  The  catalogue  of 
this  council  is  contained  in  their  sixtieth  Canon,  and 
is  exactly  the  same  as  ours,  except  that  the  book  of 
Revelation  is  omitted.  The  decrees  of  this  council 
were,  in  a  short  time,  received  into  the  Canons  of  the 
universal  church;  and  among  the  rest,  this  catalogue 
of  the  books  of  the  New  Testament.  Thus,  we  find, 
that  as  early  as  the  middle  of  the  fourth  century,  there 
was  a  universal  consent,  in  all  parts  of  the  world  to 
which  the  Christian  church  extended,  as  to  the  books 
which  constituted  the  Canon  of  the  New  Testament, 
with  the  single  exception  of  the  book  of  Revelation  ; 


132  CATALOGUES    OF   THE    BOOKS 

and  that  this  book  was  also  generally  admitted  to  be 
canonical,  we  shall  take  the  opportunity  of  proving  in 
the  sequel  of  this  work. 

6.  But  a  few  years  elapsed  from  the  meeting  of  this 
council,  before  Epiphanius,  bishop  of  Salamis,  in  the 
island  of  Cyprus,  published  his  work  "  on  Heresies," 
in  which  he  gives  a  catalogue  of  the  canonical  books 
of  the  New  Testament,  which,  in  every  respect,  is  the 
same  as  the  Canon  now  received. 

7.  About  the  same  time,  Gregory  Nazianzen, 
bishop  of  Constantinople,  in  a  Poem,  ''  on  the  True 
and  Genuine  Scriptures,"  mentions  distinctly  all  the 
books  now  received,  except  Revelation. 

8.  A  few  years  later,  we  have  a  list  of  the  books  of 
the  New  Testament  in  a  work  of  Philastrius,  bishop 
of  Brixia,  in  Italy,  which  corresponds  in  all  respects 
with  those  now  received;  except  that  he  mentions  no 
more  than  thirteen  of  Paul's  Epistles.  If  the  omission 
was  designed,  it  probably  relates  to  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews. 

9.  At  the  same  time  lived  Jerome,  who  translated 
the  whole  Bible  into  Latin.  He  furnishes  us  with  a 
catalogue  answering  to  our  present  Canon,  in  all  re- 
spects. He  does,  however,  speak  doubtfully  about  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  on  account  of  the  uncertainty 
of  its  author.  But,  in  other  parts  of  his  writings,  ho 
shows,  that  he  received  this  book  as  canonical,  as  well 
as  the  rest.* 

10.  The  catalogue  of  Rufin  varies  in  nothing  from 
the  Canon  now  received,  f 

11.  Augustine,  in  his  work  on  "  Christian  Doc- 
trine," has  inserted  the  names  of  the  books  of  the 

♦  Epist.  ad  Paulinum.  f  Expos  in  Symbol.  Apost. 


OF  THE   NEW   TESTAMENT.  133 

New  Testament,  which,  in  all  respects,  are  the  same 
as  ours. 

12.  The  Council  of  Carthage,  at  which  Augustine 
was  present,  have  furnished  a  catalogue  which  per- 
fectly agrees  with  ours.  At  this  council,  forty-four 
bishops  attended.  The  list  referred  to,  is  found  in 
their  forty-eighth  Canon. 

13.  The  unknown  author,  who  goes  under  the  name 
of  DiONYSius  the  Areopagite,  so  describes  the  books 
of  the  New  Testament,  as  to  show  that  he  received  the 
very  same  as  are  now  in  the  Canon. 

Another  satisfactory  source  of  evidence,  in  favour  of 
the  Canon  of  the  New  Testament,  as  now  received,  is 
the  fact,  that  these  books  were  quoted  as  sacred  Scrip- 
ture by  all  the  Fathers,  living  in  parts  of  the  world 
the  most  remote  from  each  other.  The  truth  of  this 
assertion  Avill  fully  appear,  when  we  come  to  speak 
particularly  of  the  books  which  compose  the  Canon. 
Now,  how  can  it  be  accounted  for,  that  these  books, 
and  these  alone,  should  be  cited  as  authority  in  Asia, 
Africa  and  Europe  ?  No  other  reason  can  be  assigned, 
than  one  of  these  two;  either,  they  knew  no  other 
books  which  claimed  to  be  canonical;  or,  if  they  did, 
they  did  not  esteem  them  of  equal  authority  with  those 
which  they  cited.  On  either  of  these  grounds  the 
conclusion  is  the  same,  that  the  books  quoted  as  Scrip- 
ture are  alone  the  canonical  books.  To  apply  this 
rule  to  a  particular  case — "the  first  Epistle  of  Peter" 
is  canonical,  because  it  is  continually  cited  by  the  most 
ancient  Christian  writers,  in  every  part  of  the  world ; 
but  the  book  called  "  The  Revelation  of  Peter,"  is 
apocryphal,  because  none  of  the  early  Fathers  have 
taken  any  testimonies  from  it.  The  same  is  true  of 
12 


134        THE  CAXOXICAL  BOOKS  ALONE 

"the  Acts  of  Peter,"  ami  "the  Gospel  of  Peter." 
These  writings  were  totally  unknown  to  the  primitive 
church,  and  are  therefore  spurious.  This  argument  is 
perfectly  conclusive,  and  its  force  was  perceived  by 
the  ancient  defenders  of  the  Canon  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment. Eusebius  repeatedly  has  recourse  to  it,  and, 
therefore,  those  persons  who  have  aimed  to  unsettle 
our  present  Canon,  as  Toland  and  Dodwell,  have 
attempted  to  prove  that  the  early  Christian  writers 
were  in  the  habit  of  quoting  indifferently,  and  promis- 
cuously, the  books  which  we  now  receive,  and  others 
which  are  now  rejected  as  apocryphal.  But  this  is  not 
correct,  as  has  been  shown  by  Nye,  Richardson,  and 
others.  The  true  method  of  determining  this  matter, 
is  by  a  careful  examination  of  all  the  passages  in  the 
writings  of  the  Fathers,  where  other  books  besides 
those  now  in  the  Canon  have  been  quoted.  Some 
progress  was  made  in  collecting  the  passages  in  the 
writings  of  the  Fathers,  in  which  any  reference  is 
made  to  the  apocryphal  books,  by  the  learned  Jere- 
miah Jones,  in  his  "  New  Method  of  settling  the 
Canon  of  the  New  Testament,"  but  the  work  Avas  left 
incomplete.  This  author,  however,  positively  denies 
that  it  is  common  for  the  Fathers  to  cite  these  books 
as  Scripture,  and  asserts,  that  there  are  only  a  very 
few  instances,  in  which  any  of  them  seem  to  have 
fallen  into  this  mistake. 

A  third  proof  of  the  genuineness  of  the  Canon  of 
the  New  Testament,  may  be  derived  from  the  fact, 
that  these  books  were  publicly  read  as  Scripture,  in 
all  tlie  Christian  churches. 

As  the  Jews  were  accustomed  to  read  the  sacred 
Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament  in  their  Synagogues, 


READ   IN   THE   CHURCHES.  135 

SO  the  earlj  Christians  transferred  the  same  practice 
to  the  church ;  and  it  seems  to  have  been  in  use  even 
in  the  apostles'  days,  as  appears  by  Col.  iv.  16,  where 
Paul  speaks  of  reading  the  Epistles  addressed  to  the 
churches,  as  a  thing  of  course,  "  And  when  this  Epis- 
tle is  read  among  you,  cause  that  it  be  read  also  in 
the  church  of  the  Laodiceans,  and  that  ye  likewise 
read  the  Epistle  from  Laodicea." 

Justin  Martyr  explicitly  testifies,  that  this  was  the 
custom  in  the  beginning  of  the  second  century.  "  On 
the  day,"  says  he,  "which  is  called  Sunday,  there  is 
a  meeting  of  all  (Christians)  who  live  either  in  cities, 
or  country  places,  and  the  memoirs  of  the  apostles, 
and  writings  of  the  prophets,  are  read."* 

Tertullian  is  equally  explicit ;  for,  in  giving  an 
account  of  the  meetings  of  Christians  for  vforship,  he 
says,  "  They  assemble  to  read  the  Scriptures,  and 
offer  up  prayers;"  and  in  another  place,  among  the 
solemn  exercises  of  the  Lord's  Day,  he  reckons,  "  Read- 
ing the  Scriptures,  singing  Psalms,"  kc.f 

The  same  account  is  given  by  Cyprian,J  and  by 
the  ancient  author  under  the  name  of  Dionysius  the 
Areopagite ;  §  and  by  several  other  ancient  authors. 
Now  this  practice  of  reading  the  sacred  Scriptures  in 
the  Christian  churches,  began  so  early  that  it  is 
scarcely  possible  that  they  could  have  been  imposed 
on  by  supposititious  writings.  A  more  effectual 
method  of  guarding  against  apocryphal  writings  ob- 
taining a  place  in  the  Canon,  could  not  have  been: 
devised.  It  afforded  all  the  members  of  the  church 
an  opportunity  of  knowing  what  books  were  acknow- 

*  Apol.  ii.  p.  93.  t  Tertull.  De  Anima. 

I  Cyp.  Epist.  36,  39.  §  Hierarch.  Eco.  c.  3. 


136       THE  CANONICAL  BOOKS  ALONE 

ledged  as  canonical,  and  precluded  all  opportunity  of 
foisting  in  spurious  works ;  since,  if  this  had  been 
done  in  some  one  church,  the  practice  of  all  other 
churches  would  quickly  have  exposed  the  imposture. 
Accordingly,  the  Fathers  often  referred  to  this  custom, 
as  the  guide  to  the  people,  respecting  the  books  which 
they  should  read.  "Avoid  apocryphal  books,"  says 
Cyril  to  his  catechumen,  "  and  study  carefully  those 
Scriptures  only  which  are  publicly  read  in  the  church." 
Again,  having  given  a  catalogue  of  the  books  of 
Scripture,  he  adds:  "Let  others  be  rejected;  and 
such  as  are  not  read  in  the  churches,  neither  do  you 
read  in  private." 

It  was  decreed  in  the  Council  of  Laodicea,  "  That 
no  private  Psalms  should  be  read  in  the  churches,  nor 
any  books  without  the  Canon ;  but  only  the  canonical 
writings  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament."  The  same 
thing  was  determined  in  the  Council  of  Carthage. 
But  notwithstanding  these  decrees,  and  the  opinions 
of  learned  Fathers,  there  were  some  pieces  read  in 
some  of  the  churches  which  were  not  canonical. 
Tlius,  DiONYSius,  bishop  of  Corinth,  in  the  second 
century,  in  a  letter  to  the  church  of  Rome,  tells  them, 
"  That  they  read  in  their  assemblies,  on  the  Lord's 
day,  Clement's  Epistle."  And  Euscbius  declares, 
"That  in  his,  and  the  preceding  times,  it  was  almost 
universally  received,  and  read  in  most  churches."  He 
says  also,  "  That  the  Shepherd  of  Ilermas  was  read 
in  many  churches,"  which  is  confirmed  by  Athanasius 
and  Rufin.  Whilst  these  books,  which  are  not  now  in 
the  Canon,  were  publicly  read  in  many  churches,  the 
book  of  Revelation  was  not,  according  to  Cyril,  read 
in  the  churches ;  nor  commanded  to  be  read  by  the 


READ   m   THE    CHURCHES.  137 

Council  of  Laodlcea.  It  would  seem,  therefore,  at 
first  view,  that  the  application  of  this  rule  would 
exclude  the  book  of  Revelation  from  the  Canon,  and 
take  in  "the  Epistle  of  Clement,"  and  "the  Shepherd 
of  Hermas."  But  the  rule  does  not  apply  to  every- 
thing which  was  read  in  the  churches,  but  to  such 
books  as  were  read  as  sacred  Scripture.  It  has  ap- 
peared in  a  former  part  of  this  work,  that  several 
books,  not  in  the  Canon  of  the  Old  Testament,  were 
nevertheless  read  in  the  churches ;  but  the  Fathers 
carefully  distinguished  between  these  and  the  canoni- 
cal books.  They  were  read  for  instruction  and  for 
the  improvement  of  manners,  but  not  as  authority  in 
matters  of  faith.  They  distinguished  the  books  read, 
in  the  churches,  into  Canonical  and  Ecclesiastical; 
of  the  latter  kind,  were  the  books  mentioned  above, 
and  some  others.  The  reason  why  the  book  of  Reve- 
lation was  not  directed  to  be  read  publicly,  shall  be 
assigned,  when  we  come  to  treat  particularly  of  the 
canonical  authority  of  that  book. 

A  fourth  argument  to  prove  that  our  Canon  of  the 
New  Testament  is  substantially  correct,  may  be  de- 
rived from  the  early  versions  of  this  sacred  book  into 
other  languages. 

Although  the  Greek  language  was  extensively 
known  through  the  Roman  empire,  when  the  apostles 
wrote,  yet  the  Christian  church  was  in  a  short  time 
extended  into  regions,  where  the  common  people,  at 
least,  were  not  acquainted  with  it,  nor  with  any  lan- 
guage except  their  own  vernacular  tongue.  While 
the  gift  of  tongues  continued,  the  difficulty  of  making 
known  the  Gospel,  would  in  some  measure  be  obvia- 
ted; but  when  these  miraculous  powers  ceased,  the 
12* 


138  EARLY   VERSIONS 

necessity  of  a  version  of  the  Gospels  and  Epistles  into 
the  language  of  the  people  would  become  manifest. 
As  far,  therefore,  as  we  may  be  permitted  to  reason 
from  the  nature  of  the  case,  and  the  necessities  of  the 
churches,  it  is  exceedingly  probable,  that  versions  of 
the  New  Testament  were  made  shortly  after  the  death 
of  the  apostles,  if  they  were  not  begun  before.  Can 
we  suppose  that  the  numerous  Christians  in  Syria, 
Mesopotamia,  and  the  various  parts  of  Italy,  would  be 
long  left  without  having  these  precious  books  trans- 
lated into  a  language  which  all  the  people  could  un- 
derstand ?  But  we  are  not  left  to  our  own  reasonings 
on  this  subject.  We  know,  that  at  a  very  early  period, 
there  existed  Latin  versions  of  the  New  Testament, 
which  had  been  so  long  in  use  before  the  time  of 
Jerome,  as  to  have  become  considerably  corrupt,  on 
which  account  he  undertook  a  new  version,  which 
soon  superseded  those  that  were  more  ancient.  Now, 
although  nothing  remains  of  these  ancient  Latin 
versions,  but  uncertain  fragments,  yet  we  have  good 
evidence  that  they  contained  the  same  books,  as  were 
inserted  in  Jerome's  version,  now  denominated  the 
Vulgate. 

13 ut,  perhaps,  the  Old  Syriac  version  of  the  New 
Testament,  called  Peshito,  furnishes  the  strongest 
proof  of  the  canonical  authority  of  all  the  books 
which  are  contained  in  it.  This  excellent  version  has 
a  very  high  claim  to  antiquity ;  and,  in  the  opinion 
of  some  of  the  best  Syriac  scholars,  who  have  pro- 
foundly examined  this  subject,  was  made  before  the 
close  of  the  first  century. 

The  arguments  for  so  early  an  origin,  are  not,  in- 
deed, conclusive,  but  they  possess  much  probability. 


OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT.  139 

whether  we  consider  the  external,  or  internal  evidence. 
The  Syrian  Christians  have  always  insisted  that  this 
version  was  made  by  the  apostle  Thaddeus;  but 
without  admitting  this  claim,  which  would  put  it  on  a 
level  with  the  Greek  original,  we  may  believe  that  it 
ought  not  to  be  brought  down  lower  than  the  second 
century.  It  is  universally  received  by  all  the  numer- 
ous sects  of  Syrian  Christians,  and  must  be  anterior 
to  the  existence  of  the  oldest  of  them.  Manes,  who 
lived  in  the  second  century,  probably  had  read  the 
New  Testament  in  the  Syriac,  which  was  his  native 
tongue ;  and  Justin  Martyr,  when  he  testifies  that 
the  Scriptures  of  the  New  Testament  were  read  in  the 
Assemblies  of  Christians,  on  every  Sunday,  probably 
refers  to  Syrian  Christians,  as  Syria  was  his  native 
place  ;  where,  also,  he  had  his  usual  residence.  And 
MiCHAELis  is  of  opinion,  that  Melito,  who  wrote 
about  A.  D.  170,  has  expressly  declared,  that  a  Syrian 
version  of  the  Bible  existed  in  his  time.  Jerome 
also  testifies,  explicitly,  that  when  he  wrote,  the  Syriac 
Bible  was  publicly  read  in  the  churches ;  for,  says  he, 
''  Ephrem  the  Syrian  is  held  in  such  veneration,  that 
his  writings  are  read  in  several  churches,  immediately 
after  the  Lessons  from  the  Bible.  It  is  also  well 
known  that  the  Armenian  version,  which  itself  is 
ancient,  was  made  from  the  Syriac. 

Now,  this  ancient  version  contains  the  Four  Gos- 
pels, the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  the  Epistles  of  Paul 
including  that  to  the  Hebrews,  the  Eirst  Epistle  of 
John,  the  First  Epistle  of  Peter,  and  the  Epistle  of 
James.  Thus  far,  then,  the  evidence  of  the  present 
Canon  is  complete ;  and  as  to  those  books  omitted  in 
this  version,    except   Revelation,  they  are  few,  and 


140  GENERAL    EVIDENCE    OF   THE 

small,  and  probably  were  unknown  to  the  translator  or 
the  evidence  of  their  genuineness  was  not  ascertained 
by  him.  And  as  it  relates  to  the  book  of  Revelation, 
the  same  reasons  which  excluded  it  from  so  many 
ancient  catalogues,  probably  operated  here.  It  was 
judged  to  be  too  mysterious  to  be  read  in  the  churches, 
and  by  common  Christians,  and,  therefore,  was  not 
put  into  the  volume  which  was  read  publicly  in  the 
churches.  The  arguments  for  a  Latin  origin  of  this 
version  possess,  in  my  judgment,  very  little  force.* 

On  the  general  evidence  of  the  genuineness  of  our 
Canon,  I  would  subjoin  the  following  remarks: 

1.  The  agreement  among  those  who  have  given 
catalogues  of  the  books  of  the  New  Testament,  from 
the  earliest  times,  is  almost  complete.  Of  thirteen 
catalogues,  to  which  we  have  referred,  seven  contain 
exactly  the  same  books,  as  are  now  in  the  Canon. 
Three  of  the  others  differ  in  nothing  but  the  omission 
of  the  book  of  Revelation,  for  which  they  had  a  par- 
ticular reason,  consistent  with  their  belief  of  its  canoni- 
cal authority ;  and  in  two  of  the  remaining  catalogues, 
it  can  be  proved,  that  the  books  omitted,  or  represented 
as  doubtful,  were  received  as  authentic  by  the  persons 
who  liave  furnished  the  catalogues.  It  may  be  as- 
serted, therefore,  that  the  consent  of  the  ancient 
church,  as  to  what  books  belonged  to  the  Canon  of  the 
New  Testament,  was  complete.  The  sacred  volume 
was  as  accurately  formed,  and  as  clearly  distinguished 
from  other  books,  in  the  third,  fourth,  and  fifth  cen- 
turies, as  it  has  ever  been  since. 

*  Oil  tliis  wliule  subject  consult  Jones  on  the  Canon,  Mi- 
ch'dcliij's  Introduction,  Mill's  Prolegomena. 


GEinJINENESS   OF   THE   CANON.  141 

2.  Let  it  be  considered,  moreover,  that  the  earliest 
of  these  catalogues  was  made  by  Origen,  who  lived 
within  a  hundred  years  after  the  aeath  of  the  apostle 
John,  and  who,  by  his  reading,  travels,  and  long  resi- 
dence in  Palestine,  had  a  full  knowledge  of  all  the 
transactions  and  writings  of  the  church,  until  his  own 
time.  In  connection  with  this,  let  it  be  remembered, 
that  these  catalogues  were  drawn  up  by  the  most 
learned,  pious,  and  distinguished  men  in  the  church ; 
or  by  councils  ;  and  that  the  persons  furnishing  them 
resided  in  different  and  remote  parts  of  the  world. 
As,  for  example,  in  Jerusalem,  Cesarsea,  Carthage  and 
Hippo  in  Africa,  Constantinople,  Cyprus,  Alexandria 
in  Egypt,  Italy,  and  Asia  Minor.  Thus,  it  appears, 
that  the  Canon  was  early  agreed  upon,  and  that  it 
was  everywhere  the  same ;  therefore,  we  find  the 
Fathers,  in  all  their  writings,  appealing  to  the  same 
Scriptures;  and  none  are  charged  with  rejecting  any 
canonical  book,  except  heretics. 

3.  It  appears  from  the  testimony  adduced,  that  it 
was  never  considered  necessary,  that  any  council,  or 
bishop,  should  give  sanction  to  these  books,  in  any 
other  way,  than  as  witnesses,  testifying  to  the  churches, 
that  these  were  indeed  the  genuine  writings  of  the 
apostles.  These  books,  therefore,  were  never  con- 
sidered as  deriving  their  authority  from  the  Church, 
or  from  Councils,  but  were  of  complete  authority  as 
soon  as  published ;  and  were  delivered  to  the  churches 
to  be  a  guide  and  standard  in  all  things  relating  to 
faith  and  practice.  The  Fathers  would  have  considered 
it  impious,  for  any  bishop  or  Council,  to  pretend  to 
add  anything  to  the  authority  of  inspired  books ;  or  to 
claim  the  right  to  add  other  books  to  those  handed 


142  GENERAL    EVIDENCE    OF   THE 

down  from  the  apostles.  The  church  is  founded  on 
*'the  apostles  and  prophets,  Jesus  Christ  being  the 
chief  corner  stone;"  but  the  sacred  Scriptures  are  no- 
way dependent  for  their  authority  on  any  set  of  men 
who  lived  since  they  were  written. 

4.  "VVe  may  remark,  in  the  last  place,  the  benignant 
providence  of  God  towards  his  church,  in  causing 
these  precious  books  to  be  written,  and  in  watching 
over  their  preservation,  in  the  midst  of  dangers  and 
persecutions ;  so  that,  notwithstanding  the  malignant 
designs  of  the  enemies  of  the  church,  they  have  all 
come  down  to  us  unmutilated,  in  the  original  tongue 
in  which  they  were  penned  by  the  apostles. 

Our  liveliest  gratitude  is  due  to  the  great  Head  of 
the  church  for  this  divine  treasure,  from  which  we  are 
permitted  freely  to  draw  whatever  is  needful  for  our 
instruction  and  consolation.  And  it  is  our  duty  to 
prize  this  precious  gift  of  divine  revelation  above  all 
price.  On  the  Law  of  the  Lord,  we  should  meditate 
day  and  night.  It  is  a  perfect  rule  ;  it  shines  with  a 
clear  liglit ;  it  exercises  a  salutary  influence  on  the 
heart ;  it  warns  us  when  we  are  in  danger,  reclaims 
us  when  we  go  astray,  and  comforts  us  when  in  afflic- 
tion. Tlie  Avord  of  the  Lord  is  "more  to  be  desired 
than  gold,  yea,  than  much  fine  gold  ;  sweeter  also  than 
honey,  and  the  honey-comb."  Psa.  xix.  10.  They  who 
are  destitute  of  this  inestimable  volume  call  for  our 
tenderest  compassion,  and  our  exertions  in  circulating 
the  Bible  should  never  be  remitted,  until  all  are  sup- 
plied with  this  divine  treasure.  But  they  who  possess 
this  sacred  volume,  and  yet  neglect  to  study  it,  are 
Btill  more  to  be  pitied,  for  they  are  perishing  in  the 


GENUINENESS    OF   THE    CANON.  143 

midst  of  plenty.  In  the  midst  of  light,  they  walk  in 
darkness.  God  has  sent  to  them  the  word  of  life,  but 
they  have  lightly  esteemed  the  rich  gift  of  his  love. 
0  that  their  eyes  were  opened,  that  they  might  behold 
wondrous  things  in  the  law  of  the  Lord ! 


144  ORDER   OF   THE   BOOKS 


SECTION   III. 


ORDER   OF   THE   BOOKS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT TIME  OP 

THE    GOSPELS    BEING   WRITTEN — NOTICE   OF    THE    EVAN- 
GELISTS. 

The  order  of  the  books  of  the  New  Testament  is  not 
uniform,  in  the  manuscripts  now  extant,  nor  as  they 
are  mentioned  by  the  Fathers.  Eusebius  arranges 
them  thus :  the  Four  Gospels,  the  Acts  of  the  Apos- 
tles, the  Epistles  of  Paul,  the  First  Epistle  of  John, 
and  the  Revelation  of  John.  ''  These,"  says  he, 
''  were  received  (except  the  last  mentioned)  by  all 
Christians."  Then,  he  mentions  those  which  were 
not  unanimously  received ;  as,  the  Epistle  of  James, 
the  Epistle  of  Jude,  the  Second  of  Peter,  and  the 
Second  and  Third  of  John. 

Iren^us,  who  lived  long  before  Eusebius,  has  not 
given  a  regular  catalogue  of  the  books  of  the  New 
Testament,  but  he  seems  to  have  followed  the  same 
order. 

But  Atiianasius,  in  his  Festal  Epistle,  has  given 
the  following  order :  The  Four  Gospels,  the  Acts  of 
the  Apostles,  the  Seven  Catholic  Epistles,  the  Four- 
teen Epistles  of  Paul,  and  the  Revelation.  The 
ancient  and  celebrated  Alexandrian  Manuscript  fol- 
lows the  same  order ;  as  also  does  Cyril  of  Jerusalem, 
but  he  does  not  mention  Revelation. 


OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT.  145 

The  arrangement,  in  the  catalogue  of  the  Council 
of  Laodicea,  is  exactly  the  same  as  that  of  Cyril ;  the 
book  of  Revelation  being  left  out.  John  Damascene, 
and  Leontius,  follow  the  same  order. 

The  order  of  the  Syrian  catalogues  as  given  by 
Ebedjesu,  is — The  Four  Gospels,  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles,  the  Three  Catholic  Epistles,  (their  Canon 
at  first  contained  no  more,)  and  the  Fourteen  Epistles 
of  Paul. 

Rufin's  order  is — The  Gospels,  the  Acts,  Paul's 
Epistles,  the  Catholic  Epistles,  and  the  Revelation. 
The  Council  of  Carthage  has  the  same.  Gregory 
Nazianzen  the  same ;  only  the  Revelation  is  omitted. 
AxMPHiLOCHius  the  same,  and  the  book  of  Revelation, 
mentioned  as  doubtful.  Nicephorus  of  Constantino- 
ple, the  same,  and  Revelation  omitted. 

This,  therefore,  appears  to  have  been  the  order  in 
which  the  books  of  the  New  Testament  succeeded  each 
other  in  most  ancient  copies ;  and  is  the  one  now  in 
general  use. 

But  Epiphanius  has  an  order  different  from  any  of 
these,  as  follows — The  Four  Gospels,  Paul's  Epistles, 
the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  the  Seven  Catholic  Epistles, 
and  the  Revelation.  Jerome  follows  the  same  order ; 
and  also  Euthalius. 

Augustine  varies  in  his  arrangement  of  the  sacred 
books.  In  one  place,  he  puts  the  Acts  last,  except 
Revelation  ;  and  in  another,  he  places  it  after  Revela- 
tion. He  also  varies  in  his  arrangement  of  the  Epistles 
of  Paul,  and  of  the  Catholic  Epistles. 

The  order  of  Innocent  the  First,  bishop  of  Rome, 
is :  The  Four  Gospels,   Paul's  Epistles,   the   Catholic 
Epistles,  the  Acts,  and  Revelation. 
13 


146  ORDER    OF   THE   BOOKS 

Isidore  of  Seville  lias,  in  liis  writings,  given  several 
catalogues,  iu  all  of  -vvliich  lie  pursues  the  order  last 
mentioned.  The  same  writer  informs  us,  that  the 
books  of  the  New  Testament  were  usually  included  in 
two  divisions,  or  volumes  ;  the  first  containing  the 
Gospels ;  the  second,  the  Acts  and  the  Epistles ;  the 
book  of  Revelation  being  omitted. 

Chrysostom  follows  an  order  which  appears  to  be 
peculiar :  he  places  first,  the  Fourteen  Epistles  of 
Paul ;  next,  the  Four  Gospels ;  then,  the  Acts  ;  and 
in  the  last  place,  the  Catholic  Epistles.  Gelasius 
places  Revelation  before  the  Catholic  Epistles.  The 
Apostolical  Canon,  as  it  is  called,  contains  the  follow- 
ing catalogue :  The  Four  Gospels,  Fourteen  Epistles 
of  Paul,  Seven  Catholic  Epistles,  Two  Epistles  of  Cle- 
ment, the  Constitutions,  and  the  Acts.  If  this  were, 
indeed,  the  genuine  Canon  of  the  apostles,  as  the  title 
imports,  it  would  be  decisive,  and  all  other  authorities 
would  be  superfluous ;  but  it  is  acknowledged  by  all 
good  critics,  that  it  is  spurious,  and  of  no  authority  in 
settling  the  early  Canon. 

The  order  of  the  Four  Gospels  has  generally  been, 
as  in  our  copies,  Matthew,  Mark,  Luke,  John.  Iren- 
3DUS,  Origcn,  Eusebius,  Athanasius,  the  Council  of 
Laodicea,  Gregory  Nazianzen,  Amphilochius,  the 
Syrian  Catalogues,  Jerome,  Rufin,  Augustine,  the 
Alexandrian  Manuscript  with  most  others,  agree  in 
this  order. 

But  that  this  order  was  not  uniform,  appears  from 
Tertullian,  who  arranges  them  thus — Matthew,  John, 
Luko,  ^lark.  And  the  same  order  of  the  Gospels  is 
followed,  ill  the  very  ancient  Manuscript,  commonly 
called,  Codex  Cantabrigiensis. 


OF   THE    NEW    TESTAMENT.  147 

There  is  very  little  variation  observed  in  the  ar- 
rangement of  Paul's  Epistles.  They  are  generally 
found  in  the  same  order  as  we  have  them  in  our 
copies ;  but  this  is  not  universally  the  case :  for  in 
some  copies,  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  occupies  the 
fourteenth  place  among  Paul's  Epistles,  and  in  others 
the  tenth.  But  in  all  copies,  the  Epistle  to  the 
Eomans  stands  first,  though  not  first  in  the  order 
of  time. 

With  respect  to  the  time  when  the  gospels  were 
written,  no  precise  information  can  be  obtained,  as 
ancient  authors  diifer  considerably  on  the  subject. 
It  seems  to  be  agreed,  however,  that  they  were  not 
published  immediately  after  the  ascension  of  Christ : 
nor  all  at  the  same  time.  The  best  thing  which  we 
can  do  is  to  place  before  the  reader  the  principal 
testimonies  of  the  Fathers,  and  leave  him  to  judge  for 
himself.* 

The  earliest  writer  who  says  anything  explicitly  on 
this  subject  is  Ieenjeus;  but  he  does  not  inform  us 
what  time  intervened  between  the  resurrection  of 
Christ,  and  the  writing  of  these  gospels.  His  words 
are  ;  "  For  we  have  not  received  the  knowledge  of  the 
way  of  salvation,  from  any  others  than  those  by  whom 
the  gospel  has  been  brought  to  us,  which  gospel  they 
first  preached,  and  afterwards,  by  the  will  of  God, 
committed  to  writing,  that  for  time  to  come  it  might 
be  the  foundation  and  pillar  of  our  faith.  Nor,  may 
any  say  that  they  preached  before  they  had  a  compe- 
tent knowledge  of  the  gospel ;  for  after  that  our  Lord 

*  The  testimonies  here  adduced  are,  for  the  most  part,  selected 
from  the  collections  of  Lardner,  to  whose  works  the  reader  is 
referred. 


148  WHEX   THE   GOSPELS   WERE   WRITTEN. 

rose  from  tlie  dead,  and  tliey  were  endued,  from 
above,  "with  the  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  which  had 
come  down  upon  them,  tliej  received  a  perfect  know- 
ledge of  all  things.  They  went  forth  to  all  the  ends 
of  the  earth,  declaring  to  men  the  blessing  of  heavenly 
peace ;  having  all  of  them,  and  every  one  of  them, 
the  gospel  of  God." 

Now  let  it  be  considered,  that  Irenoeus  was  the  dis- 
ciple of  Polycarp,  who  was  the  disciple  of  the  apostle 
John,  and  this  testimony  will  have  great  weight  in 
confirming  the  fact,  that  the  gospels  were  written  by 
the  apostles,  some  time  after  they  began  to  preach ; 
and  that,  wherever  the  apostles  went,  they  preached 
the  same  gospel  to  the  people. 

EuSEBius,  to  whom  we  are  obliged  so  often  to  have 
recom'se  as  a  witness  of  ancient  ecclesiastical  facts, 
docs  not  fail  us  here ;  "  Those  admirable  and  truly 
divine  men,"  says  he,  "the  apostles  of  Christ,  did  not 
attempt  to  deliver  the  doctrine  of  their  master,  with 
the  artifice  and  eloquence  of  words.  .  .  .  Nor  were 
they  concerned  about  writing  books,  being  engaged  in 
a  more  excellent  ministry,  which  is  above  all  human 
power.  Insomuch  that  Paul,  the  most  able  of  all,  in 
the  furniture  of  words  and  ideas,  has  left  nothing  in 
writing  but  a  few  Epistles.  Nor  were  the  rest  of  our 
Saviour's  followers  unacquainted  with  these  things,  as 
the  seventy  disciples,  and  many  others  besides  the 
twelve  apostles.  Nevertheless,  of  all  the  disciples  of 
our  Lord,  Matthew  and  John  only  have  left  us  any 
^Memoirs ;  who,  also,  as  we  have  been  informed,  were 
impelled  to  write,  by  a  kind  of  necessity."* 

*  Ecc.  TTist.  lib.  iii.  c.  29.  Eusehius  also,  in  c.  xxx,  mentions 
several  spurious  books,  falsely  attributed  to  the  apostles.  "Amonty 


WHEN   THE    GOSPELS    WERE   WRITTEN.  149 

Theodore  of  Mopsuesta,  who  lived  in  the  latter 
part  of  the  fourth  century,  has  left  us  the  following 
testimony;  "After  the  Lord's  ascension  to  heaven, 
the  disciples  stayed  a  good  while  at  Jerusalem,  visiting 
the  cities  in  the  vicinity,  and  preaching  chiefly  to  the 
Jews :  and  the  great  Paul  w^as  appointed,  openly  to 
preach  the  gospel  to  the  Gentiles."  "In  process  of 
divine  Providence,  they,  not  being  allowed  to  confine 
themselves  to  any  one  part  of  the  earth,  were  con- 
ducted to  remote  countries.  Peter  went  to  Rome ; 
the  others   elsewhere.     John   took  up    his   abode   at 

Ephesus,  visiting,  however,  other  parts  of  Asia 

About  this  time,  the  Evangelists,  Matthew,  Mark  and 
Luke,  published  their  gospels,  which  were  soon  spread 
over  the  world,  and  were  received  by  all  the  faithful 

with  great  regard Numerous   Christians  in 

Asia  having  brought  these  gospels  to  John,  earnestly 
entreated  him  to  write  a  further  account  of  such  things 
as  were  needful  to  be  known,  and  had  been  omitted 
by  the  rest;  with  which  request  he  complied." 

By  divers  Christian  writers  of  antiquity,  it  has  been 
asserted,  that  Mark,  the  disciple  and  interpreter  of 
Peter,  at  the  earnest  request  of  the  brethren  at  Rome, 
wrote  a  short  gospel,  according  to  what  he  had  heard 
related  by  Peter.  This  testimony,  among  others,  is 
given  by  Jerome  in  his  book  of  Illustrious  Men. 

It  is  probable  that  Peter  did  not  visit  Rome  before 
the  reign  of  Nero;  perhaps  not  until  Paul  had  re- 
turned a  second  time  to  that  city,' which  must  have 
been  as  late  as  the  year  A.  D.  63  or  64.     Now,  as 

those,"  says  he,  "  which  must  be  numbered  among  the  spurious 
is,  The  Acts  of  Paul,"  "The  Pastor,"  and  *'  The  Revelation  of 
Peter." 

13* 


150  WHEN   THE    GOSPELS   WERE   WRITTEN. 

the  brethren  requested  of  Mark  to  give  them  in 
"writing  the  substance  of  Peter's  preaching,  his  gospel 
could  not  have  been  written  at  an  earlier  period. 
And,  it  would  seem,  if  this  fact  be  undoubted,  that 
they  had,  until  this  time,  never  seen  a  written  gospel ; 
and,  probably,  did  not  know  that  there  was  one  in 
existence. 

The  Jewish  war,  according  to  Josephus,  began  in 
the  year  of  our  Lord  GQ,  and  ended  in  September  of 
the  year  70 ;  when  the  city  and  temple  were  brought 
to  desolation.  Now,  there  is  strong  probable  evidence, 
that  the  gospels  of  Matthew,  Mark,  and  Luke,  were 
finished  before  this  war  commenced  ;  that  is,  before 
the  year  of  our  Lord  sixty-six.  Each  of  them  con- 
tains the  predictions  of  our  Lord  respecting  the  de- 
struction of  Jerusalem,  and  there  is  no  hint  in  any  of 
them,  that  the  remarkable  events  connected  with  this 
overthrow  had  begun  to  make  their  appearance.  But 
there  are  some  expressions  in  these  gospels,  which 
probably  indicate,  that  the  writers  thought  that  these 
wonderful  events  were  at  hand ;  such  as  the  following 
admonition,  "Let  him  that  readeth  understand." 

It  is  certain  that  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  could  not 
have  been  finished  before  A.  D.  62  or  63,  because  the 
history  which  it  contains  comes  down  to  that  time. 
The  gospel  by  Luke  was  probably  written  a  short 
time  before.  At  least,  this  seems  to  be  the  common 
opinion  of  learned  men.  Jerome  supposes  that  he 
composed  his  gospel  at  Rome.  Grotius  thinks,  that 
when  Paul  left  Home  Luke  went  into  Greece,  and 
there  wrote  his  gospel  and  the  Acts. 

From  the  introduction  to  Luke's  gospel,  it  would 
Beem  that  he  knew  nothing  of  any  authentic  written 


THE   GOSPEL   BY   MATTHEW.  151 

gospel  at  that  time ;  for  he  cannot  be  supposed  to 
refer  to  such,  when  he  says,  "Forasmuch  as  many 
have  taken  in  hand  to  set  forth  in  order  a  dechiration 
of  those  things  which  are  most  surely  believed  among 
us ;"  and  if  he  had  known  that  Matthew  had  written 
a  gospel,  he  could  not  easily  have  avoided  some  refer- 
ence to  it  in  this  place.  But  the  inference  of  Lardner 
from  this  fact,  that  no  authentic  gospel  had  been  writ- 
ten before  this  time,  is  unauthorized,  and  repugnant 
to  all  the  testimony  which  we  have  on  the  subject. 
The  gospel  of  Matthew  might  have  been  circulating 
for  some  time  among  the  churches  in  Judea,  and  yet 
not  be  known  to  Luke,  whose  labours  and  travels  led 
him,  in  company  with  Paul,  to  visit  the  Gentile  coun- 
tries and  cities.  If  we  pay  any  regard  to  the  opinions 
of  those,  who  lived  nearest  the  times  of  the  apostles, 
we  must  believe  that  the  gospel  of  Matthew  was  first 
written,  and  in  the  vernacular  dialect  of  Judea,  com- 
monly called  Hebrew.  The  writer  of  this  gospel  is 
also  called  Levi,  the  son  of  Alpheus.  He  was  a  Gal- 
ilean by  nation,  and  a  publican  by  profession.  When 
called  to  follow  Christ,  he  was  sitting  at  the  receipt 
of  custom,  where  the  taxes  were  paid,  but  he  immedi- 
ately left  all  these  temporal  concerns,  and  attached 
himself  to  Christ,  who  afterwards  selected  him  as  one 
of  the  twelve.  From  this  time  he  seems  to  have  been 
constantly  with  Christ  until  his  crucifixion,  of  which 
event  he  was  doubtless  a  witness ;  as  he  was  also  of 
the  resurrection  and  ascension  of  his  Lord.  On  the 
day  of  Pentecost,  he  was  present  with  his  brethren, 
and  partook  of  the  rich  spiritual  endowments,  which 
were  then  bestowed  on  the  apostles.  But  afterwards 
there  is  no  explicit  mention  of  him  in  the  New  Testa- 


152  THE   GOSPEL   BY   MATTHEW. 

ment.  In  his  own  catalogue  of  the  twelve,  his  name 
occupies  the  eighth  place,  as  it  does  in  the  Acts ;  but 
in  the  lists  of  the  apostles,  contained  in  the  gospels  of 
Luke  and  Mark,  it  occupies  the  seventh  place. 

There  is  an  almost  total  obscurity  resting  on  the 
history  of  this  apostle  and  evangelist.  The  scene  of 
his  labours,  after  he  left  Judea,  seems  to  have  been  in 
regions  of  which  we  possess  very  little  accurate  infor- 
mation to  this  day.  But  whether  he  had  Parthia  and 
Persia,  or  Ethiopia,  for  the  field  of  his  apostolical 
labours,  the  ancients  are  not  agreed.  It  is  by  no 
means  impossible  that  he  should  have  preached  the 
gospel,  and  planted  churches,  in  each  of  these  coun- 
tries. The  historian  Socrates,  in  his  distribution  of 
the  apostles  among  the  countries  of  the  globe,  assigns 
Ethiopia  to  ^latthew,  Parthia  to  Thomas,  and  India 
to  Bartholomew. 

The  testimony  of  Eusebius  is  as  follows :  "  This 
then  was  the  state  of  the  Jcavs,  but  the  apostles  and 
disciples  of  our  Lord,  being  dispersed  abroad,  preached 
in  the  whole  world,  Thomas  in  Parthia ;  AndrcAV  in 
Scythia,  John  in  Asia,  who  having  lived  there  a  long 
time,  died  at  Ephesus.  Peter  preached  to  the  dis- 
persed Jews  in  Pontus,  Galatia,  Bithynia,  Cappa- 
docia,  and  Asia ;  at  length,  coming  to  Home,  he  was 
there  crucified,  with  his  head  turned  down  towards  the 
earth,  at  his  own  request.  Paul  also  died  a  martyr  at 
Home,  as  we  are  informed  by  Origen,  in  the  third  tome 
of  his  work  on  Genesis."  But  Eusebius  makes  no 
mention  of  the  apostle  Matthew ;  nor  docs  Jerome,  in 
his  account  of  Illustrious  Men.* 

Clement  of  Alexandria  mentions  a  circumstance  of 
*  Ecc.  Ilibt.  lib.  hi.  c.  1. 


THE   GOSPEL   BY   MATTHEW.  153 

this  apostle's  mode  of  life,  but  nothing  more  :  he  says, 
*'  That  he  was  accustomed  to  use  a  very  spare  diet, 
eating  vegetables,  but  no  flesh." 

Chrysostom,  in  one  of  his  Homilies,  gives  the  cha- 
racter of  Matthew,  but  furnishes  us  w^ith  no  facts. 

It  is  probable,  therefore,  that  very  little  was  known 
in  the  west,  respecting  the  lives,  labours  and  death,  of 
those  apostles  who  travelled  far  to  the  east.  None  of 
them,  it  is  probable,  ever  returned ;  and  there  existed 
no  regular  channels  for  the  communication  of  intelli- 
gence from  those  distant  regions.  The  honour  of 
martyrdom  has  been  given  to  them  all,  and  the  thing 
is  not  improbable ;  but  there  are  no  authentic  records, 
from  which  we  can  derive  any  certain  information  on 
this  subject.  The  Fathers,  whose  writings  have  come 
down  to  us,  seem  to  have  been  as  much  in  the  dark  as 
we  are,  respecting  the  preaching  and  death  of  the 
majority  of  the  apostles.  There  are,  it  is  true,  tradi- 
tions in  Ethiopia  and  the  east,  in  regard  to  some  of 
them,  but  they  are  too  uncertain  to  deserve  any  serious 
consideration. 


154  TESTIMONIES   TO   MATTHEW'S   GOSPEL. 


SECTION  IV. 


TESTIMONIES  TO  MATTHEW  S  GOSPEL TIME  OF  PUBLICA- 
TION  LANGUAGE  IN  WHICH  IT  WAS  ORIGINALLY  COM- 
POSED. 

But  while  we  know  so  little  of  tlie  apostolical  labours 
of  the  Evangelist  Matthew,  it  is  pleasing  to  find  that 
the  testimonies  respecting  the  genuineness  of  his  gospel 
are  so  early  and  full.  To  these  we  will  now  direct  our 
attention. 

Barnabas,  the  companion  of  Paul,  is  said  by  the 
ancient  ecclesiastical  writers,  to  have  left  an  Epistle 
of  some  length.  This  is  mentioned  by  Origen,  Jerome 
and  Eusebius,  and  is  frequently  quoted  by  Clement  of 
Alexandria.  An  Epistle  under  his  name  is  still  extant, 
but  whether  written  by  this  apostolic  man  is  very  much 
disputed.  Whoever  was  the  author,  it  seems  to  have 
been  written  shortly  after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem, 
and  by  a  zealous  Christian.  In  this  Epistle,  there  are 
many  sentences  foimd  in  the  gospel  of  Matthew,  but 
no  reference  to  any  book  of  the  New  Testament.  In 
some  of  them,  however,  there  are  evident  signs  that 
these  passages  which  are  found  in  the  gospel  were 
quotations.  One  of  these  is  in  Matthew  xx.  16.  And 
in  this  Epistle  it  is  thus  introduced;  "Let  us,  there- 
fore, beware,  lest  it  should  happen  unto  us,  as  it  is 
written^  There  arc  many  called,  but  few  chosen." 

As  the  Christians  Avho  lived  at  the  beginning  of  the 


TESTIMONIES   TO   MATTHEW'S   GOSPEL.  155 

gospel,  did  not  receive  their  instruction  from  written 
gospels,  but  from  the  preaching  of  the  apostles,  they 
would  often  express  in  their  writings  the  same  things 
in  substance  which  we  read  in  the  Evangelists,  so  that 
unless  they  use  marks  of  quotation,  it  cannot  be  cer- 
tainly known  that  these  phrases  are  cited  from  any 
book.  They  may  have  learnt  them  from  hearing  the 
apostles,  or  even  Christ  himself.  But  when  they  in 
the  text  cited,  say,  as  it  is  writteii,  it  may  fairly  be 
inferred,  that  when  found  in  one  of  the  gospels  it  was 
taken  from  it. 

The  circumstance  above  mentioned  furnishes  a  satis- 
factory reason  for  the  fact,  that  in  the  writings  of  the 
apostolical  Fathers,  there  is  so  seldom  any  reference 
to  the  books  of  the  New  Testament.  These  men  re- 
ceived their  knowledge  of  Christianity  before  any  of 
the  books  of  the  New  Testament  were  written ;  and 
although  they  existed  when  they  wrote,  they  would  not 
be  so  likely  to  refer  to  them  as  if  they  had  derived 
their  knowledge  from  them. 

Papias,  bishop  of  Hierapolis,  who  was  acquainted 
with  the  Apostle  John,  expressly  mentions  Matthew's 
gospel ;  and  asserts,  "  That  he  wrote  the  divine  oracles 
in  Hebrew."* 

Justin  Martyr,  who  lived  in  the  middle  of  the 
second  century,  has  in  many  places  cited  the  very 
w^ords  of  the  gospel  of  Matthew,  but  without  men- 
tioning his  name.  One  instance  will  be  suflScient: 
"  And  it  is  written  in  the  gospel,  that  he  said.  All 
things  are  delivered  to  me  of  my  Father,  and  no  man 
knoweth  the  Son  but  the  Father ;  neither  the  Father, 
save  the  Son,  and  they  to  whom  the  Son  will  reveal 
*  See  Euseb.  Ecc.  Hist.  lib.  iii.  c.  xxxix. 


156  TESTIMONIES   TO   MATTHEW'S   GOSPEL. 

hini."     This   is  taken  from  the  gospel  of  Matthew, 


o* 


XI. 

Iren^US,  bishop  of  Lyons,  who  was  born  in  Asia, 
and  was  acquainted  with  Polycarp,  the  disciple  of  the 
apostle  John,  gives  the  following  testimony:  ''We 
have  not  received  the  knowledge  of  the  way  of  om' 
salvation  by  any  others,  than  those  through  whom  the 
gospel  has  come  down  to  us ;  which  gospel  they  first 
preached,  and  afterwards,  by  the  will  of  God,  trans- 
mitted to  us  in  writino;,  that  it  might  be  the  foundation 
and  pillar  of  our  faith." — "For  after  our  Lord  had 
risen  from  the  dead,  and  they  were  clothed  with  the 
power  of  the  Holy  Spirit  descending  upon  them  from 
on  high,  were  filled  with  all  gifts,  and  possessed  per- 
fect knowledge,  they  went  forth  to  the  ends  of  the 
earth,  spreading  the  glad  tidings  of  those  blessings 
which  God  has  conferred  on  us,  and  announcing  peace 
from  heaven  to  men ;  having  all,  and  every  one  alike, 
the  gospel  of  God.  Matthew  among  the  Hebrews 
published  a  gospel  in  their  own  language ;  while  Peter 
and  Paul  were  preaching  the  gospel  at  Rome  and 
founding  a  church  there.  And  after  their  departure, 
Mark,  the  disciple  and  interpreter  of  Peter,  himself 
delivered  to  us  in  writing  what  Peter  preaclicd ;  and 
Luke,  the  companion  of  Paul,  recorded  the  gospel 
preached  by  him.  Afterwards  John,  the  disciple  of 
the  Lord,  who  leaned  upon  his  breast,  likewise  pub- 
lished a  gospel,  while  he  dwelt  at  Ephesus,  in  Asia. 
And  all  these  have  taught  us,  that  there  is  one  God, 
the  maker  of  heaven  and  earth,  announced  by  the  law 
and  the  prophets;  and  one  Christ,  the  Son  of  GoD."f 

In  another  place  Irenseus  characterizes  all  the  four 
*  Dialogue  with  Trypho.     f  Contra  IIa;r(3S.  lib.  iii.  c.  i.  p.  173. 


TESTIMONIES   TO   MATTHEW'S   GOSPEL.  157 

gospels,  by  setting  down  the  beginning  of  eacb  ;  where 
of  Matthew  he  says,  ^'Matthew  proclaims  his  human 
generation,  saying.  The  genealogy  of  Jesus  Christ,  the 
Son  of  David,  the  Son  of  Abraham." 

In  another  place  he  says,  '*  The  gospel  of  Matthew 
was  delivered  to  the  Jews." 

This  early  testimony  from  a  learned  man  living  so 
near  the  times  of  the  apostles  is  invaluable,  and  must 
be  satisfactory  to  every  candid  mind  of  the  genuine- 
ness of  the  four  gospels.  Other  decisive  testimonies 
might  be  adduced  from  the  same  author,  but  they  are 
unnecessary. 

Hegesippus,  who  also  lived  and  flourished  in  the 
second  century,  was  the  author  of  an  Ecclesiastical 
History  extending  from  the  death  of  Christ  to  his  own 
times,  which  unhappily  has  not  come  down  to  us.  All 
that  remains  is  a  few  fragments  preserved  by  Euse- 
bius.  In  one  of  these  he  cites  a  passage  from  the 
gospel  of  Matthew  xiii.  16,  "  Blessed  are  your  eyes 
which  see,  and  your  ears  which  hear." 

Athenagoras  also  was  a  writer  of  the  second  cen- 
tury. He  wrote  two  books,  one  on  the  Resurrection, 
the  other,  an  Apology  for  the  Christians.  Of  this 
man  Philip  Sidetes  says,  "  that  he  was  a  heathen  and 
determined  to  write  against  Christianity,  but  by  read- 
ing the  gospels  was  converted.  He  has  citations  from 
nearly  all  the  books  of  the  New  Testament.  From 
the  gospel  of  Matthew  he  quotes  the  following  words ; 
"Love  your  enemies,  bless  them  that  curse  you,  pray 
for  them  that  persecute  you,  that  ye  may  be  the 
children  of  your  Father  which  is  in  heaven,  who  maketh 
his  sun  to  rise  on  the  evil  and  the  good,  and  sendeth 
rain  on  the  just  and  unjust."  Matt.  v.  44,  45. 
14 


158  TESTIMONIES   TO   MATTUEW'S   GOSPEL. 

Origen,  who  was  born  in  the  second  century,  and 
wrote  and  flourished  in  the  beginning  of  the  third,  has 
left  us  the  following  testimony:  ''According  to  the 
traditions  received  by  me,  the  first  gospel  was  written 
by  Matthew,  once  a  publican,  afterwards  a  disciple  of 
Jesus  Christ,  who  delivered  it  to  the  Jewish  believers, 
composed  in  the  Hebrew  language."  And  in  another 
place  he  says,  "  Matthew  wrote  for  the  Hebrews." 

EusEBius,  who  lived  about  a  hundred  years  later 
than  Origen,  informs  us,  that  "  Matthew,  having  first 
preached  the  gospel  to  the  Hebrews,  w^hen  about  to  go 
to  other  people,  delivered  to  them,  in  their  own  lan- 
guage, the  gospel  written  by  himself;  by  that  sup- 
plying the  want  of  his  presence  with  them,  whom  he 
was  about  to  leave."* 

In  the  Synopsis,  which  has  been  ascribed  to  Atiia- 
NASIUS,  it  is  said,  "  Matthew  wrote  his  gospel  in  the 
Hebrew,  and  published  it  at  Jerusalem."  Cyril  of 
Jerusalem  testifies,  "  That  Matthew  wrote  in  Hebrew." 
Epiphanius  says  the  same,  and  adds,  "  Matthew  wrote 
first,  and  Mark  soon  after  him,  being  a  follower  of 
Peter  at  Rome."  Gregory  Naziakzen  says,  "That 
Matthew  wrote  for  the  Hebrews."  Ebedjesu,  the 
Syrian,  "  That  IMatthew,  the  first  Evangelist,  pub- 
lished his  gospel  in  Palestine,  written  in  Hebrew." 

Jerome,  in  his  Commentary  on  JMatthcAv,  testifies 
that  "  The  first  Evangelist  is  Matthew,  the  publican, 
surnamed  Levi,  who  Avrote  his  gospel  in  Judea,  in  tlie 
Hebrew  language,  chiefly  for  the  Jews  who  believed 
in  Jesus,  and  did  not  johi  the  shadow  of  the  law  with 
the  truth  of  the  gospel." 

*  Euscb.  Ecc.  Hist.  lib.  iii.  c.  21. 


TESTIMONIES   TO    MATTHEW'S   GOSPEL.  159 

Again,  in  his  book  of  Ecclesiastical  Writers,  he  says, 
''  Matthew,  called  also  Levi,  of  a  publican  made  an  apos- 
tle, first  of  all  wrote  a  gospel  in  the  Hebrew  language, 
for  the  sake  of  those  in  Judea  who  believed.  By  whom 
it  was  afterwards  translated  into  Greek  is  uncertain." 

Chrysostom,  in  his  introduction  to  this  gospel, 
writes,  ''  Matthew  is  said  to  have  written  his  gospel  at 
the  request  of  the  Jewish  believers,  who  desired  him 
to  put  down  in  writing  what  he  had  said  to  them  by 
word  of  mouth  ;  and  it  is  said  he  wrote  in  Hebrew." 

Theophilus,  bishop  of  Antioch,  lived  in  the  latter 
part  of  the  second  century,  and  wrote  several  works. 
Jerome  in  his  prologue  to  the  gospel  of  Matthew,  says, 
"  I  have  read  the  commentaries  of  Theophilus,  bishop 
of  Antioch."  In  another  place  he  says :  "  Theophilus, 
the  seventh  bishop  of  Antioch  after  Peter,  who  col- 
lected into  one  the  words  of  the  four  gospels." 

It  would  be  unnecessary  to  adduce  any  testimonies 
from  later  writers ;  but  as  they  mention  some  circum- 
stances probably  received  by  tradition,  and  not  con- 
tained in  the  earlier  testimonies,  I  will  subjoin  a  few 
of  them. 

CosMAS,  who  lived  in  the  sixth  century,  reports, 
that  "  Matthew  is  the  first  that  wrote  a  gospel.  A 
persecution  having  arisen  after  the  stoning  of  Stephen, 
and  he  having  resolved  to  go  from  that  place,  the  be- 
lievers entreated  him  to  leave  with  them  a  written 
instruction  ;  with  which  request  he  complied." 

Another  author  of  this  century,  who  wrote  a  dis- 
course on  Matthew,  has  left  this  testimony  :  "  The 
occasion  of  Matthew's  writing  is  said  to  have  been  this 
• — there  being  a  great  persecution  in  Palestine,  so  that 
there  was  danger  lest  the  faithful  should  be  dispersed ; 


IGO  TIME  OF  WRITIXG  MATTHEW'S  GOSPEL. 

that  they  might  not  be  without  teaching,  they  re- 
quested Matthew  to  write  for  them  an  accurate  history 
of  all  Christ's  words  and  works ;  that  wherever  they 
should  be,  they  might  have  with  them  the  ground  of 
their  faith." 

In  the  Paschal  Chronicle,  written  in  the  seventh 
century,  it  is  intimated,  that  Matthew  published  his 
gospel  about  fifteen  years  after  our  Lord's  ascension.  ' 

EuTHYMius,  in  the  beginning  of  the  twelfth  century, 
says,  "  That  this  gospel  was  first  written  in  the  He- 
brew language  for  the  Jewish  believers,  eight  years 
after  our  Lord's  ascension." 

From  these  testimonies,  it  appears,  that  the  Fathers 
had  no  certain  knowledge  of  the  exact  time  when 
Matthew  wrote  his  gospel.  Irengeus  refers  it  to  the 
period  when  Paul  and  Peter  were  preaching  at  Rome, 
but  he  speaks  vaguely  on  the  subject. 

The  writers  who  mention  a  precise  time,  lived  at 
too  late  a  period  to  give  testimony  on  this  subject. 
But  all  agree,  that  this  was  the  first  gospel  written. 

Among  the  moderns,  there  is  much  diversity  of 
opinion,  as  might  be  expected,  where  there  is  little 
else  than  conjecture  to  guide  them.  Lardner  and 
Basnage  supposed  that  this  gospel  was  not  written 
before  A.  D.  64.  Cave  thought  that  it  was  written 
fifteen  years  after  the  ascension  of  Christ.  Jeremiah 
Jones  is  in  favour  of  that  opinion  which  places  it 
eight  years  after  the  ascension.  Grotius  and  G.  J. 
Vossius  are  of  the  same  opinion.  So  also  is  Wet- 
STEIN.  But  TiLLEMONT  carrics  it  up  to  the  third 
year  after  the  crucifixion  of  our  Saviour.*     Lardner 

♦  Tomline,  Townson,  Flornc.  Townscnd,  &c.  plead  for  an  early 
origin  of  this  gospel,  referring  it  to  A.  D.  3G  or  37. 


ORIGINAL  LANGUAGE  OF  MATTHEW'S  GOSPEL.      161 

and  Percy  have  adduced  arguments  for  a  late  origin 
of  this  gospel,  derived  from  internal  evidence,  but 
they  are  of  very  inconsiderable  weight. 

As  it  is  agreed  that  it  was  written  before  Matthew 
left  Judea  to  preach  the  gospel  in  foreign  parts,  and 
as  this  event  seems  to  have  occurred  after  the  perse- 
cution which  was  raised  at  Judea  against  the  church, 
it  seems  probable,  that  they  are  nearest  the  truth, 
who  place  it  about  eight  years  after  the  ascension  of 
Christ ;  which  date  unites  more  writers  in  its  support 
than  any  other. 

Not  only  the  date,  but  the  original  language  of  this 
gospel  has  been  made  a  subject  of  controversy.  By 
the  testimonies  already  cited,  it  seems  that  there  was 
but  one  opinion  among  the  ancients  in  regard  to  this 
matter.  With  one  voice  they  inform  us,  that  it  was 
written  in  Hebrew ;  or  in  the  vernacular  tongue  of 
the  Jews,  which  in  the  Scriptures,  and  by  the  Chris- 
tian Fathers,  is  called  Hebrew.  This  language  is  now 
called  Syro-Chaldaic,  or  Western  Aramean,  but  it 
consisted  chiefly  of  words  derived  from  Hebrew  origin, 
and  was,  in  fact,  the  Hebrew  corrupted  by  a  large 
mixture  of  foreign  words,  and  by  various  changes  in 
the  prefixes  and  affixes  of  the  words.  This  was  the 
language  in  which  Jesus  Christ  spoke  and  delivered 
all  his  discourses ;  and  which  the  apostles  were  accus- 
tomed to  speak  from  their  childhood. 

Although  the  Greek  language  was  understood  by 
all  the  learned  in  Judea  at  this  time,  and  by  many  of 
the  people,  yet  it  was  not  the  vernacular  language  of 
the  Jews  dwelling  in  Palestine.  In  a  book  composed 
for  the  immediate  use  of  the  churches  in  Judea,  it  was 
necessary  that  it  should  be  in  that  language  which  they 
14* 


162  ORIGINAL   LANGUAGE 

all  understood ;  wliich  was  neither  pure  Hebrew  nor 
Greek.  The  testimony  of  the  Fathers  is,  therefore, 
strengthened  by  a  consideration  of  the  nature  of  the 
case.  And  if  it  were  not  so,  yet  when  the  judgment 
of  modern  critics  stands  opposed  to  the  universal  testi- 
mony of  the  ancients,  in  regard  to  a  matter  of  fact, 
which  occured  not  long  before  their  time,  there  ought 
to  be  no  hesitation  which  is  most  deserving  of  credit. 

There  is,  however,  one  difficulty  attending  this 
opinion,  which  is,  that  it  supposes  that  the  original  of 
this  gospel  is  lost,  and  we  have  now  nothing  but  a 
translation,  which  opinion  would  lessen  its  canonical 
authority. 

It  must  be  confessed,  that  this  is  a  consequence  of  a 
serious  kind,  and  one  which  ought  not  to  be  received 
respecting  any  canonical  book  without  necessity.  But 
does  this  conclusion  necessarily  follow  from  the  admis- 
sion, that  this  gospel  was  originally  composed  in  the 
Hebrew  language  ?  Might  there  not  have  been  a  ver- 
sion immediately  prepared  by  the  writer  himself,  or  by 
some  other  person  under  his  superintendence?  This 
being  the  first  gospel  that  was  composed,  it  wouki 
naturally  be  in  great  request  with  all  Christians  who 
knew  of  its  existence ;  and  as  none  but  the  Jewish 
Christians  could  understand  it,  as  first  published,  it  is 
exceedingly  probable,  that  a  request  was  made  of  tlie 
author  to  publish  an  edition  of  it  in  Greek,  also,  by 
those  who  did  not  understand  the  Hebrew ;  or,  by 
such  as  were  going  to  preach  the  gospel  in  countries 
"where  the  Greek  language  was  in  common  use. 

It  has  been  considered  a  strong  objection  to  the 
Hebi'ew  original  of  this  gospel,  that  no  person,  whose 
writings  have  come  down  to  us,  has  intimated  that  he 


OF  Matthew's  gospel.  .  163 

had  ever  seen  it ;  and  from  the  earliest  times  it  seems 
to  have  existed  in  the  Greek  language.  But  this  fact 
is  perfectly  consistent  with  the  supposition  now  made ; 
for  the  desolation  of  Judea,  and  dispersion  of  the  Jew- 
ish Christians,  having  taken  place  within  a  few  years 
after  the  publication  of  Matthew's  gospel,  the  copies 
of  the  original  Hebrew  would  be  confined  to  the  Jew- 
ish converts ;  and  as  other  Christians  had  copies  in 
the  Greek,  of  equal  authenticity  with  the  Hebrew,  no 
inquiries  would  be  made  after  the  latter.  These  Jew- 
ish Christians,  after  their  removal,  dwindled  away  in 
a  short  time,  and  a  large  part  of  them  became  erro- 
neous in  their  faith ;  and  though  they  retained  the 
Hebrew  gospel  of  Matthew,  they  altered  and  corrupted 
it  to  suit  their  own  heretical  opinions.  There  is  rea- 
son to  believe,  that  the  gospel  of  the  Nazarenes,  was 
the  identical  gospel  of  Matthew,  wdiich  in  process  of 
time  was  greatly  mutilated  and  corrupted  by  the 
Ebionites.  Of  this  gospel  much  is  said  by  the  Fa- 
thers, and,  in  the  proper  place,  we  shall  give  some 
account  of  it.* 

The  only  remaining  objection  of  any  weight  against 
the  ancient  opinion,  is,  that  the  gospel  according  to 
Matthew,  as  w^e  now  have  it,  has  no  appearance  of 
being  a  translation,  but  has  the  air  and  style  of  an 
original.  But  if  the  hypothesis,  suggested  above  be 
adopted,  this  objection  also  will  vanish ;  for  according 
to  this  the  Greek  is  an  original,  as  well  as  the  He- 
brew, it  having  been  written  by  Matthew  himself,  or 
by  some  disciple  under  his  direction.  But  whether 
the  Greek  of  MatthcAv  was  written  by  himself  or 
not,  it  is  certain  that  it  was  not  later  than  the  apos- 
tolic age,  and  received  the  approbation  of  apostles 
*  See  Note  E. 


164      ORIGINAL  LANGUAGE  OF  MATTUEW'S  GOSPEL. 

or  apijstolic  men,  -wliicli  is  sufficient  to  establish  its 
authenticity.* 

•  The  Icurncd  world  have  been  nearly  equally  divided  on  the 
question,  whether  Matthew  wrote  his  gospel  in  Hebrew  or  Greek. 
In  favour  of  the  former  opinion,  may  be  cited,  Bellarmine,  Gro- 
tius,  Casaubon,  Walton,  Tomline,  Cave,  Hammond,  Mill,  Har- 
vrood,  Owen,  Campbell,  A.  Clarke,  Simon,  Tillemont,  Pritius,  Du- 
pin,  Calmet,  ^ljchaelis,  and  others.  In  favour  of  the  Greek 
ori«,Mn  of  this  gospel  the  names  are  not  less  numerous,  nor  less 
rej>pectable.  Among  these  may  be  mentioned,  Erasmus,  Parous, 
Calvin,  Le  Clerc,  Fabricius,  PfeitTer,  Lightfoot,  Beausobre, 
IJasnage,  Wetstein,  Rumpa?us,  Whitby,  Edelman,  Hoffman, 
INIoldenhawer,  Viser,  Ilarles,  Jones,  Jortin,  Lardner,  Hey, 
Hales,  Hewlett,  and  otliers. 

Tlie  two  opinions  were  supported  hy  a  weight  of  argument 
and  aulliority  so  nearly  balanced,  that  Dr.  Townson,  and  a  few 
others,  have  adopted  a  middle  course,  viz.  the  opinion  stated 
above,  tliat  there  were  two  originals;  by  which  theory  all  dilfi- 
ciilties  are  removed.  The  only  objection  is  the  want  of  evidence. 
Jforiie  and  TowMsend  have  adopted  this  opinion.  See  Home's 
lutrod.  vol.  iv.  Part  ii.  c.  ii.  Sec.  ii.  p.  207. 


GOSPEL   OF   MARK.  166 


SECTION  V. 


GOSPEL  OF  MARK — ON  WHAT  OCCASION  PUBLISHED — AS- 
CRIBED TO  THE  DICTATION  OF  PETER  BY  ALL  THE 
FATHERS. 

The  author  of  the  second  gospel,  as  they  stand  in  the 
Canon,  was  Mark ;  the  same  who  is  mentioned  in  the 
first  Epistle  of  Peter,  (v.  13;)  but  whether  he  was  the 
same  as  John  Mark,  of  Jerusalem,  who  travelled  for  a 
while  with  Paul  and  Barnabas,  has  been  doubted  by 
Grotius,  Cave,  Dupin  and  Tillemont ;  but  the  common 
opinion  is  in  its  favour,  and  the  objections  to  it  are 
not  of  much  weight :  and  as  there  is  no  clear  evidence, 
that  there  were  two  persons  of  this  name  mentioned 
in  Scripture,  I  shall  consider  all  that  is  said  of  Mark, 
as  having  reference  to  the  same  person. 

Paul  was  offended  at  him  because  he  declined  accom- 
panying him  and  Barnabas  on  the  whole  tour  which 
they  made,  to  preach  the  gospel ;  for,  Avhen  they  came 
to  Perga,  Mark  departed  from  them,  and  returned  to 
Jerusalem.  And  when  Paul  and  Barnabas  were  about 
to  undertake  a  second  journey  together, the  latter 
insisted  on  taking  Mark  as  their  minister,  but  Paul 
would  by  no  means  consent  to  it,  because  he  had  for- 
saken them  on  their  first  mission.  This  difference  of 
opinion  gave  rise  to  a  sharp  altercation,  which  termi- 
nated in  the  separation  of  these  venerable  colleagues. 


166  GOSPEL    OF    MARK,    WHEN   WllITTEN. 

Mark  now  travelled  with  Barnabas,  but,  probably, 
Boon  afterwards  attached  himself  to  Peter,  with  whom 
Lc  seems  to  have  continued  until  the  death  of  that 
apostle. 

But  Paul  himself  seems  to  have  been  reconciled  to 
Mark,  and  to  have  valued  his  assistance  in  the  work 
of  the  ministry  ;  for,  in  his  second  Epistle  to  Timothy, 
he  writes,  ''Take  Mark  and  bring  him  with  thee,  for 
he  is  profitable  unto  me  for  the  ministry."  2  Tim.  iv. 
11.  lie  also  mentions  him  in  his  Epistle  to  Philemon. 
Phil.  24. 

"When  this  gospel  was  composed,  has  not  been  par- 
ticularly mentioned  by  any  ancient  author,  except  that 
it  is  said  to  have  been  after  Peter  came  to  Home,  which 
could  not  be  much  earlier  than  A.  D.  62  or  63.  It  is 
stated,  that  Mark  was  requested  by  the  brethren  at 
Home  to  put  down  in  writing  the  substance  of  Peter's 
prcacliing;  and  on  this  account,  this  gospel  among 
the  primitive  Christians  was  as  familiarly  known  by 
the  name  of  the  gospel^  of  Peter  as  of  Mark.  This 
circumstance  has  led  some  to  assert,  that  Mark  wrote 
his  gospel  in  Latin,  as  this  was  the  language  of  Rome ; 
but  in  those  days  almost  all  the  Romans  understood 
Greek.  And  the  Jewish  converts,  who  composed  a 
hiiL^.'  puiiioii  of  the  first  churches,  understood  Greek 
niiieii  better  than  Latin.  But  there  is  no  need  to 
ar«:ue  this  jtoinl.  Tliere  is  no  ancient  author  who  tes- 
tifies that  Mark  wrote  in  Latin.  The  testimony  is 
uniform  that  he  wrote  in  Greek. 

]>ar(niius  is  almost  the  only  learned  man  who  has 
n'l\.H-:ii(..l  i]i(>  Latin  ori^rin  of  the  gospel  of  Mark, 
and  h«'  has  nothing  to  produce  in  favour  of  this  opinion 
from  unti«|uity,  except  the  subscription  to  the  Syriac, 


TESTIMONIES   TO   THE   GOSPEL    OF   MARK.        167 

Arabic  and  Persic  versions  of  tlie  New  Testament, 
where,  at  the  end  of  Mark's  gospel,  it  is  said,  "  He 
spoke  and  preached  in  Latin  at  Rome ;"  but  this  does 
not  say  that  he  wrote  his  gospel  in  Latin.  But  these 
subscriptions  are  of  very  little  authority  in  matters  of 
this  kind.  No  one  knows  when,  or  by  whom  they 
were  placed  there;  and,  although  three  versions  are 
mentioned,  they  make  up  no  more  than  one  witness, 
for,  probably  all  the  others  borrowed  this  inscription 
from  the  Syriac. 

Augustine  called  Mark  "  the  abridger  of  Mat- 
thew;" and  it  mi5st  be  confessed,  that  he  often  uses 
the  same  words,  and  tells  more  concisely  what  the  other 
had  related  more  copiously ;  yet,  there  is  satisfactory 
evidence,  that  Mark's  gospel  is  an  original  work.  It 
contains  many  things  which  are  not  in  the  gospel  of 
Matthew,  and  some  mentioned  by  that  Evangelist  are 
here  related  with  additional  circumstances. 

All  authors  do  not  agree  that  Mark  wrote  his  gospel 
at  Rome,  but  some  think  at  Alexandria:  the  former 
opinion,  however,  was  received  with  almost  universal 
consent.  See  the  testimony  of  Irenseus  before  cited. 
To  which  may  be  added  what  he  says  in  another  place, 
that,  "  Mark  begins  with  the  prophetic  spirit  which 
came  down  from  above  to  men,  saying,  the  beginning 
of  the  gospel  of  Christ." 

Some  of  the  testimonies  of  the  Fathers  respecting 
this  gospel  will  now  be  given. 

EusEBius  out  of  Papias,  and  a  lost  work  of  Cle- 
ment of  Alexandria,  relates,  "  That  when  Peter  in 
the  reign  of  Claudius,  had  come  to  Rome,  and  had 
defeated  Simon  Magus,  the  people  were  so  inflamed 
with  love  for  the  Christian  truths,  as  not  to  be  satisfied 


1G8  mark's  gospel. 

witli  the  hearing  of  them,  unless  they  also  had  them 
written  down.  That  accordingly  they,  with  earnest 
entreaties,  applied  themselves  to  Mark,  the  companion 
of  Peter,  and  whose  gospel  we  now  have,  praying  him 
tliat  he  would  write  down  for  them,  and  leave  with 
tlicm  an  account  of  the  doctrines  which  had  been 
preached  to  them ;  that  they  did  not  desist  in  their 
request,  till  they  had  prevailed  on  him,  and  procured 
his  writing  that  which  is  now  the  gospel  of  Mark  ; 
that  when  Peter  came  to  know  this,  he  was,  by  the 
direction  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  pleased  with  the  request 
of  the  people,  and  confirmed  the  gospel  which  was 
written  for  the  use  of  the  churches."* 

The  same  Eusebius  relates  in  another  part  of  his 
works,  what  Papias  had  testified  concerning  Mark's 
gospel,  "  That  Mark,  who  Avas  Peter's  interpreter, 
exactly  wrote  down  Avhatsoever  he  remembered,  though 
not  in  the  same  order  of  time  in  which  the  several 
things  were  said  or  done  by  Christ;  for  he  neither 
lieard  nor  followed  Christ,  but  was  a  companion  of 
Peter,  and  composed  his  gospel,  rather  with  the  intent 
of  the  people's  profit,  than  writing  a  regular  history ; 
so  tliat  he  is  in  no  fault,  if  he  wrote  some  things  ac- 
cording to  his  memory,  he  designing  no  more  than  to 
omit  notliing  Avlilcli  lie  had  heard,  and  to  relate  nothing 
false."t 

Anotlier  testimony  from  Clement  of  Alexandria 
is  given  ])y  Eusebius,  in  which  it  is  said,  "When 
Peter  was  publicly  preaching  the  gospel  at  Rome,  by 
the  influences  of  tlie  Holy  Spirit,  many  of  the  converts 
desired  Mark,  as  having  been  long  a  companion  of 
Peter,  and  ulio  well  remembered  what  he  preached, 
*  Fee.  IIis(.  lib.  ii.  c.  15.  f  Ecc.  Hist.  lib.  iii.  c.  39. 


mark's  gospel  canonical  and  inspired.  169 

to  write  down  his  discourses :  that  upon  this  he  com- 
posed his  gospel,  and  gave  it  to  those  who  made  this 
request ;  which  when  Peter  knew,  he  neither  ob' 
structed  nor  encouraged  the  work."* 

Iren^us  says,  *'  That  after  the  death  of  Peter  and 
Paul  who  had  been  preaching  at  Rome,  Mark  the  dis- 
ciple and  interpreter  of  Peter,  wrote  down  what  he 
had  heard  him  preach."  Tertullian  informs  us,  "  That 
the  gospel  published  by  Mark  may  be  reckoned  Peter's, 
whose  interpreter  he  was."  Origen  adds,  "  That 
Mark  wrote  his  gospel  according  to  the  dictates  of 
Peter."  Jerome  tells  us,  ''  That  Mark  the  disciple 
and  interpreter  of  Peter,  wrote  a  short  gospel  from 
what  he  had  heard  of  Peter,  at  the  request  of  the 
brethren  at  Rome,  which  when  Peter  knew,  he  ap- 
proved and  published  in  our  churches,  commanding 
the  reading  of  it  by  his  own  authority." 

Besides  these  testimonies  w^hich  are  very  explicit, 
and  all  go  to  show  that  Mark  received  his  gospel  from 
the  preaching  of  Peter,  there  are  some  internal  evi- 
dences which  look  the  same  way.  There  are  in  the 
other  Evangelists  several  circumstances  and  facts  which 
make  very  much  for  the  credit  of  Peter,  not  one  of 
which  is  hinted  at  in  this  gospel.  Particular  instances 
of  this  kind  may  be  read  in  the  third  volume  of 
"Jones'  New  Method  of  Settling  the  Canon." 

Of  the  canonical  authority  of  this  gospel  no  one  of 
the  ancients,  I  believe,  ever  entertained  a  doubt. 
Some  of  the  moderns,  however,  have  questioned  whe- 
ther we  have  any  evidence,  that  Mark  and  Luke  wrote 
by  a  plenary  inspiration  since  they  were  not  apostles. 
But  that  Mark's  gospel  is  canonical,  is  established  by  all 
*  Ecc.  Hist.  lib.  vi.  c.  14. 

15 


170     mark's   GOSrEL   CAXOXICAL   AND   INSPIRED. 

the  rules  api)llcable  to  the  case.  It  was  ahvays  con- 
tained in  the  early  catalogues ;  was  read  as  Scriptui'e 
in  the  churches;  was  quoted  as  Scripture  by  the 
Fathers;  was  inserted  in  the  earliest  versions;  and 
never  doubted  formerly,  by  any  Christian  writer. 
But  this  subject  will  be  resumed  hereafter. 

EusEBius  reports,  "That  Peter,  out  of  the  abun- 
dance of  his  modesty,  did  not  think  himself  worthy  to 
write  a  gospel;  but  Mark,  who  was  his  friend  and 
disciple,  is  said  to  have  recorded  Peter's  relations,  and 
tlie  acts  of  Jesus."  And  again,  "  Peter  testifies  these 
things  of  himself,  for  all  things  recorded  by  Mark  are 
said  to  be  memoirs  of  Peter's  discoui's^s." 

In  the  Synopsis  ascribed  to  Athanasius  it  is  said, 
"  That  the  gospel  according  to  Mark  was  dictated  by 
Peter  at  Rome,  and  published  by  Mark,  and  preached 
by  him  in  Alexandria,  Pentapolis  and  Libya." 

The  testimony  of  Epiphanius  is,  "  That  Matthew 
wrote  first,  and  Mark  soon  after  him,  being  a  com- 
panion of  Peter  at  Rome ;  that  Mark  was  one  of  the 
seventy  disciples,  and  likewise  one  of  those  who  were 
offended  at  the  words  of  Christ,  recorded  in  the  sixth 
chapter  of  the  gospel  of  John;  that  he  then  forsook 
the  Saviour,  but  was  afterwards  reclaimed  by  Peter, 
and  being  filled  with  the  Spirit  wrote  a  gospel." 

Gregory  Nazianzen  says,  "That  Mark  wrote  his 
gospel  for  the  Italians."  Chrysostom  testifies,  that 
"  Mark  wrote  in  Egypt  at  the  request  of  the  believers 
there;"  but  in  another  place,  he  says,  "It  cannot  be 
ascertained  in  what  place  each  of  the  Evangelists 
wrote."  Victor  informs  us,  "That  Mark  was  also 
called  John,  and  was  the  son  of  Mary;  that  he  wrote  a 
gospel  after  Matthew;  that  for  a   while   he   accom- 


mark's  gospel  canonical  and  inspired.   171 

panied  Paul  and  Barnabas  his  relation,  but  when  he 
came  to  Rome  he  joined  Peter.  When  he  was  obliged 
to  quit  Rome,  he  was  requested  by  the  brethren  to 
write  a  history  of  his  preaching,  and  of  his  heavenly 
doctrine;   with  which  request   he  readily  complied." 

Cosmas  of  Alexandria  writes,  ^'That  Mark  the 
second  Evangelist  wrote  a  gospel  at  Rome,  by  the  dic- 
tation of  Peter."  (Ecumenius  says,  "  This  John  who 
also  is  called  Mark,  nephew  to  Barnabas,  wrote  the 
gospel  which  goes  by  his  name ;  and  was  also  the  dis- 
ciple of  Peter." 

Theophylact  informs  us,  "  That  the  gospel  accord- 
ing to  Mark  was  wiitten  at  Rome,  ten  years  after  the 
ascension  of  Jesus  Christ,  at  the  request  of  the  be- 
lievers there ;  for  this  Mark  was  a  disciple  of  Peter. 
His  name  was  John,  and  he  was  nephew  to  Barnabas, 
the  companion  of  Paul." 

EuTHYMius  concurs  exactly  in  this  testimony.  His 
words  are,  "  The  gospel  of  Mark  was  written  about 
ten  years  after  our  Lord's  ascension,  at  the  request  of 
the  believers  at  Rome,  or,  as  some  say,  in  Egypt ; 
that  Mark  was,  at  first,  much  with  his  uncle  Barnabas 
and  Paul,  but  afterwards  went  with  Peter  to  Rome, 
from  whom  he  received  the  whole  history  of  his  gos- 
pel." Nicephorus  says,  "Only  two  of  the  twelve 
have  left  memoirs  of  our  Lord's  life,  and  two  of  the 
seventy,  Mark  and  Luke."  And  a  little  after,  "Mark 
and  Luke  published  their  gospels,  by  the  direction  of 
Peter  and  Paul."  Eutychius,  patriarch  of  Alexan- 
dria, has  the  following  words:  "In  the  time  of  Nero, 
Peter,  the  prince  of  the  apostles,  making  use  of  Mark, 
wrote  a  gospel  at  Rome,  in  the  Roman  language." 

The  reader  will  recollect,  that  this  last  writer  lived 


as  late  as  tlic  tenth  century,  which  will  account  for 
his  calling  Peter  the  prince  of  the  apostles,  a  language 
entirely  foreign  to  the  early  ecclesiastical  writers. 
And  Selden  is  of  opinion,  that  by  the  Roman  lan- 
guage he  meant  the  Greek,  which  was  then  in  com- 
mon use  at  Rome ;  and  it  is  well  known,  that  in  our 
times  the  modern  Greek  language  is  called  Romaic, 
Jones  and  Lardner  concur  in  the  opinion  of  Selden. 


GOSPEL   OF  LUKE.  1T3 


SECTION  VI. 

GOSPEL  OF  LUKE — TESTIMONIES  OP  THE  FATHERS  RESPECT- 
ING IT. 

The  third  gospel  is  that  of  Luke.  He  is  mentioned 
in  Scripture  as  the  companion  of  Paul  in  his  travels ; 
and  when  that  apostle  was  sent  a  prisoner  to  Home 
this  evangelist  accompanied  him,  and  continued  with 
him  during  his  two  years'  confinement  in  that  city,  as 
may  be  gathered  from  Paul's  Epistles,  written  during 
this  period.  Whether  he  was  the  same  as  "  the  be- 
loved physician,"  Col.  iv.  14,  mentioned  by  Paul,  is 
uncertain,  but  the  general  opinion  is  in  favour  of  it. 
It  is  also  disputed,  whether  or  not  he  was  one  of  the 
geventy  disciples.  Without  undertaking  to  decide 
these  points,  I  will  proceed  to  lay  before  the  reader 
the  principal  testimonies  of  the  Fathers  respecting 
this  gospel  and  its  author. 

Iren^us  asserts,  "  That  Luke,  the  companion  of 
Paul,  put  down  in  a  book  the  gospel  preached  by  him." 
Again,  he  says,  "  Luke  was  not  only  a  companion  but 
a  fellow-labourer  of  the  apostles,  especially  of  Paul." 
He  calls  him,  ''a  disciple  and  fellow-labourer  of  the 
apostles."  "  The  apostles,"  says  he,  "  envying  none, 
plainly  delivered  to  all  the  things  which  they  had 
heard  from  the  Lord."  So  likewise  Luke,  envying 
no  man,  has  delivered  to  us  what  he  learned  from 
15* 


174  TESTIMONIES    OF   THE   FATHERS 

them,  as  lie  says,  ''  even  as  they  delivered  them  unto 
us,  who  from  the  beginning  were  eye-witnesses,  and 
ministers  of  his  word."* 

EusEBius  informs  us,  that  Clement  of  Alexandria 
bore  a  large  testimony  to  this,  as  well  as  to  the  other 
gospels ;  and  he  mentions  a  tradition  concerning  the 
order  of  the  gospels,  which  Clement  had  received  from 
presbyters  of  more  ancient  times — "  That  the  gospels 
containing  the  genealogies  were  WTitten  first." 

Tertullian  speaks  of  Matthew  and  John  as  dis- 
ciples of  Christ ;  of  Mark  and  Luke  as  disciples  of  the 
apostles;  however,  he  ascribes  the  same  authority  to 
the  gospels  written  by  them  as  to  the  others.  "The 
gospel,"  says  he,  "which  Mark  published,  may  be 
said  to  be  Peter's,  whose  interpreter  Mark  w^as ;  and 
Luke's  digest  is  often  ascribed  to  Paul.  And  indeed 
it  is  easy  to  take  that  for  the  Master's  which  the  dis- 
ciples published."  Again,  "Moreover,  Luke  was  not 
an  apostle,  but  an  apostolic  man ;  not  a  master  but  a 
disciple:  certainly  less  than  his  master;  certainly  so 
nmch  later,  as  he  is  a  follower  of  Paul,  the  last  of  the 
apostles." 

Origen  mentions  the  gospels  in  the  order  com- 
monly received — "The  third,"  says  he,  "is  that  ac- 
cording to  Luke,  the  gospel  commended  by  Paul,  pub- 
lished for  the  sake  of  the  Gentile  converts."  In  his 
coiiimentary  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  which  we 
now  have  in  a  Latin  version  only,  he  writes,  "  Some 
say  Lucius  is  Lucas,  the  evangelist,  as  indeed  it  is  not 
uncommon  to  write  names,  sometimes  according  to  the 

♦  *'  The  frospc!  accordinjT  to  Luke,  bcincr  of  a  priestly  cliarac- 
ter,  bcj^iiib  with  Zuchurias  the  priest  offeriug  iuceuse  to  God.' 


COJ^CERNINa   LUKE'S   GOSPEL.  175 

original  form ;  sometimes  according  to  the  Greek  and 
Roman  termination." 

EuSEBius  has  left  us  the  following  testimony  con- 
cerning Luke  the  evangelist — '^  And  Luke  who  was 
of  Antioch,  and  bj  profession  a  physician,  for  the  most 
part  a  companion  of  Paul,  who  had,  likewise,  more 
than  a  slight  acquaintance  with  the  other  apostles,  has 
left  us,  in  two  books,  divinely  inspired,  evidences  of 
the  art  of  healing  souls,  which  he  had  learned  from 
them.  One  of  them  is  the  gospel  which  he  pro- 
fesseth  to  have  written,  as  they  delivered  it  to  him, 
who  from  the  beginning  were  eye-witnesses  and  min- 
isters of  his  word."  "With  all  whom,"  he  says,  "he 
had  been  perfectly  acquainted  from  the  first."  And 
in  another  place,  he  says,  "  Luke  hath  delivered,  in 
his  gospel,  a  certain  account  of  such  things  as  he  had 
been  assured  of  by  his  intimate  acquaintance  and 
familiarity  with  Paul,  and  his  conversation  with  the 
other  apostles."* 

Li  the  Synopsis  ascribed  to  Athanasius,  it  is  said, 
"  That  the  gospel  of  Luke  was  dictated  by  the  apostle 
Paul,  and  written  and  published  by  the  blessed  apostle 
and  physician  Luke."  Gregoey  Nazianzen  says, 
"  That  Luke  wrote  for  the  Greeks ;"  and  Gregory 
Nyssen,  "  That  Luke  was  as  much  a  physician  for  the 
soul  as  the  body." 

The  testimony  of  Jerome  concerning  Luke  is  as 
follows :  "  Luke,  who  was  of  Antioch,  and  by  profes- 
sion a  physician,  not  unskilful  in  the  Greek  language, 
a  disciple  of  the  apostle  Paul,  and  the  constant  com- 
panion of  his  travels,  wrote  a  gospel,  and  another  ex- 
cellent volume,  entitled,  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles 
*  Ecc.  Hist.  lib.  iii.  c.  iv. 


176  TESTIMONIES   OF  THE  FATHERS 

.  .  .  .  It  is  supposed  that  Luke  did  not  learn 
his  gospel  from  the  apostle  Paul  only,  who  had  not 
conversed  with  the  Lord  in  the  flesh,  but  also  from 
other  apostles,  which  likewise  he  owns  at  the  beginning 
of  his  volume,  saying,  '  Even  as  they  delivered  them 
unto  us  who  from  the  beginning  were  eye-witnesses 
and  ministers  of  the  word.'  Therefore,  he  wrote  the 
gospel  from  the  information  of  others ;  but  the  Acts 
he  composed  from  his  own  knoAvledge."* 

The  same  writer  in  his  preface  to  his  commentary 
on  Matthew,  says,  "  The  third  evangelist  is  Luke  the 
physician,  a  Syrian  of  Antioch,  who  was  a  disciple  of 
the  apostle  Paul,  and  published  his  gospel  in  the  coun- 
tries of  Achaia  and  Boeotia."  In  another  place  he 
observes,  "  That  some  said  that  Luke  had  been  a  pro- 
selyte to  Judaism,  before  his  conversion  to  Christian- 
ity." Chrysostom,  in  his  first  homily  on  the  gospel 
of  Matthew,  has  this  remark  :  "  Luke  had  the  fluency 
of  Paul,  Mark  the  conciseness  of  Peter,  both  learning 
of  their  masters." 

Isidore  of  Seville,  says,  "  Of  the  four  evangelists, 
the  first  and  last  relate  what  they  had  heard  Christ 
say,  or  had  seen  him  perform.  JNIatthcw  wrote  his 
gospel  first  in  Judea ;  then  Mark  in  Italy  ;  Luke,  the 
tliird,  in  Achaia;  John,  the  last,  in  Asia."  And 
again,  "  of  all  the  evangelists,  Luke,  the  third  in  order, 
is  reckoned  to  have  been  the  most  skilful  in  the  Greek 
toTif^uc.  For  he  was  a  physician,  and  wrote  his  gos- 
pel in  (I reck." 

In  Tiieoi'IIYLACt's  preface  to  Matthew's  gospel,  it 
is  said,  "  There   are   four  evangelists,   two   of  whom, 
Matthew  and  John,  were  of  the  apostles ;  the  other 
*  Jiouk  of  Illustrious  Men. 


CONCEENING  LUKE'S   GOSPEL.  17T 

two,  Mark  and  Luke,  were  of  the  number  of  the  sev- 
enty. Mark  was  a  disciple  and  companion  of  Peter ; 
Luke  of  Paul  ....  Luke  wrote  fifteen  years  after 
Christ's  ascension." 

In  his  commentary  on  Luke  he  observes,  "  That  it 
appears  from  Luke's  Introduction,  that  he  was  not 
from  the  beginning  a  disciple,  but  only  afterwards. 
For  others  were  disciples  from  the  beginning,  as  Peter, 
and  the  sons  of  Zebedee,  who  delivered  to  him  the 
things  which  they  had  seen  or  heard." 

EuTHTMius  says,  "  Luke  was  a  native  of  Antioch, 
and  a  physician.  He  was  a  hearer  of  Christ,  and, 
as  some  say,  one  of  his  seventy  disciples,  as  well  as 
Mark.  He  was  afterwards  very  intimate  with  Paul. 
He  wrote  his  gospel,  with  Paul's  permission,  fifteen 
years  after  our  Lord's  ascension." 

EuTYCHius,  patriarch  of  Constantinople,  has  handed 
down  the  following  account :  "  In  the  time  of  the 
same  emperor,  (Nero)  Luke  wrote  his  gospel  in  Greek, 
to  a  notable  and  wise  man  of  the  Romans,  whose  name 
was  Theophilus ;  to  whom  also  he  wrote  the  Acts,  or 
the  history  of  the  disciples.  The  evangelist  Luke  was 
a  companion  of  the  apostle  Paul,  going  with  him 
wherever  he  went.  For  which  reason  the  apostle 
Paul,  in  one  of  his  epistles,  says,  '  Luke  the  physician 
salutes  you.'  "  » 

The  same  arguments  by  which  the  canonical  au- 
thority of  the  gospels  of  Matthew  and  Mark  were 
established,  apply  with  their  full  force  to  the  gospel 
of  Luke.  It  was  universally  received  as  canonical 
by  the  whole  primitive  church — has  a  place  in  every 
catalogue  of  the  books  of  the  New  Testament,  which 
was  ever  published — is  constantly  referred  to  and  cited 


178  TESTIMONIES   OF  THE  FATHERS,    AC. 

by  the  Fathers  as  a  part  of  sacred  Scripture — and 
was  one  of  the  books  constantly  read  in  the  churches, 
as  a  part  of  the  rule  of  faith  and  practice  for  all  be- 
lievers. 

Marciox,  the  heretic,  it  is  true,  had  a  gospel  ac- 
cording to  Luke,  which  differed  essentially  from  that 
in  the  Canon,  but  his  authority  has  no  weight. 


OBJECTIONS   OF  MICHAELIS.  179 


SECTION  VII. 


THE  OBJECTIONS  OF  J.  D.  MICHAELIS  TO  THE  CANONICAL 
AUTHORITY  OP  THE  GOSPELS  OF  MARK  AND  LUKE,  CON- 
SIDERED  AND   ANSWERED. 

J.  D.  MiCHAELis,  in  his  introduction  to  the  New 
Testament,  as  translated  from  the  German  by  Bishop 
Marsh,  in  the  third  section  of  the  third  chapter, 
speaking  of  the  gospels  of  Mark  and  Luke,  and  of  the 
Acts  of  the  Apostles,  and  of  the  grounds  of  placing 
them  in  the  Canon,  says,  "  I  must  confess  that  I  am 
unable  to  find  a  satisfactory  proof  of  their  inspiration, 
and  the  more  I  investigate  the  subject,  and  the  oftener 
I  compare  their  writings  with  those  of  Matthew  and 
John,  the  greater  are  my  doubts."  He  then  goes  on 
to  say,  that  in  a  former  edition  of  this  work  he  had 
stated  the  arguments  on  both  sides  of  the  question, 
but  although  uncertain  which  he  should  prefer,  yet  he 
had  rather  inclined  to  the  affirmative.  But  now  he 
tells  us,  that  he  is  strongly  inclined  to  the  negative. 

The  first  argument  for  the  inspiration  of  these  gos- 
pels, which  the  learned  professor  considers,  is  derived 
from  the  fact,  that  Mark  and  Luke  were  companions 
and  assistants  of  the  apostles.  This,  he  says,  can 
afi'ord  no  proof  of  their  inspiration,  even  if  it  could  be 
shown  that  they  were  endowed  with  the  extraordinary 
gifts  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  of  which,  however,  there  is 


180  MICHAELIS'S   OBJECTIONS   ANSWERED. 

no  historical  proof.  Because  a  disciple  might  possess 
these  gifts,  and  yet  his  writings  not  be  inspired. 
And  if  -we  ground  the  argument  for  their  inspiration 
on  the  character  of  an  apostle's  assistant,  then  we 
must  receive  as  canonical  the  genuine  epistle  of  Cle- 
ment of  Home,  and  the  writings  of  other  apostolical 
Fathers. 

The  next  argument  which  he  considers  is,  that  the 
apostles  themselves  have  recommended  these  gospels 
as  canonical  in  their  epistles.  That  the  passages 
depended  on  for  proof,  do  refer  to  these  or  any  other 
written  gospels,  the  professor  denies  :  but  even  if  they 
did,  he  considers  the  evidence  unsatisfactory ;  for  he 
supposes  that  they  might  have  commended  a  book  as 
containing  genuine  historical  accounts,  without  vouch- 
ing for  its  inspiration. 

The  testimony  of  the  Fathers,  that  these  gospels 
were  approved  by  Peter  and  Paul  respectively,  and 
with  Matthew's  gospel  were  shown  to  the  apostle 
John,  the  learned  professor  sets  aside  with  very  little 
ceremony. 

And,  finally,  he  demurs,  in  regard  to  the  evidence 
of  the  canonical  authority  of  these  books,  derived  from 
the  testimony  of  the  whole  primitive  church,  by  which 
tlicy  were  undoubtedly  received  into  the  Canon ;  and 
suggests,  that  the  apostles  might  have  recommended 
them  and  tlie  primitive  church  have  accepted  them, 
as  works  indispensalde  to  a  Christian  on  account  of 
tlie  importance  of  their  contents,  and  that  by  insensi- 
ble degrees  they  acquired  the  character  of  being  in- 
spired. 

<  )n  these  reasonings  and  objections  against  the  inspi- 
ration and  canonical  authority  of  several  important 


MICHAELIS'S   OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED.  181 

books,  which  have  hitherto  held  an  unquestioned  place 
in  the  Canon  of  the  New  Testament,  and  coming  from 
the  pen  of  a  man,  too,  of  such  extensive  Biblical  learn- 
ing, I  think  it  necessary  to  detain  the  reader  with 
Bome  remarks,  which  I  hope  will  have  the  effect  of 
counteracting  the  pernicious  influence  of  the  opinions 
which  have  been  exhibited  above. 

1.  In  the  first  place,  then,  I  would  observe,  that  it 
will  be  admitted  that  Mark  and  Luke  were  humble, 
pious  men ;  also  that  they  were  intelligent,  well  in- 
formed men,  and  must  have  known  that  the  commit- 
ting to  writing  the  facts  and  doctrines  comprehended 
in  the  gospel,  was  not  left  to  the  discretion  or  caprice 
of  every  disciple,  but  became  the  duty  of  those  only 
who  were  inspired  by  the  Holy  Ghost  to  undertake 
the  work.  Now,  if  these  two  disciples  had  been  unin- 
spired, or  not  under  the  immediate  direction  of  apostles 
who  possessed  plenary  inspiration,  it  would  have 
argued  great  presumption  in  them,  without  any  direc- 
tion, to  write  gospels  for  the  instruction  of  the  church. 
The  very  fact  of  their  writing,  is,  therefore,  a  strong 
evidence  that  they  believed  themselves  to  be  inspired. 
There  is  then  little  force  in  the  remark  of  the  learned 
professor,  that  neither  Mark  nor  Luke  have  declared 
in  any  part  of  their  writings  that  they  were  inspired ; 
for  such  a  declaration  was  unnecessary ;  their  conduct 
in  undertaking  to  write  such  books,  is  the  best  evi- 
dence that  they  believed  themselves  called  to  this 
work. 

And  the  objection  to  this  argument,  from  the  wri- 
tings of  other  apostolical  men,  is  not  valid ;  for  none 
of  them  ever  undertook  to  write  gospels  for  the  use 
of  the  church.  All  attempts  at  writing  other  gospels 
16 


1S2  MICHAELIS'S   OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED. 

than  the  f<»ur  were  considered  by  the  prlmitire 
cliiirch  as  impious;  because  the  writers  were  unin- 
spired men. 

2.  But  the  universal  reception  of  these  books  by  the 
whole  primitive  church  as  canonical,  and  that  while 
some  of  the  apostles  were  living,  is  the  evidence,  which 
to  my  mind  is  conclusive,  that  they  were  not  mere 
human  productions,  but  compared  by  divine  inspira- 
tion. That  they  were  thus  universally  received,  I 
think  is  manifest,  from  the  testimonies  which  have 
already  been  adduced.  There  is  not  in  all  the  wri- 
tings of  antiquity  a  hint,  that  any  Christian  belonging 
to  the  church  ever  suspected  that  these  gospels  were 
inferior  in  authority  to  the  others.  No  books  in  the 
Canon  appear  to  have  been  received  with  more  univer- 
sal consent,  and  to  have  been  less  disputed.  They  are 
contained  in  every  catalogue  which  has  come  down  to 
us.  They  are  cited  as  Scripture  by  all  that  mention 
them ;  and  are  expressly  declared  by  the  Fathers  to 
be  canonical  and  inspired  books. 

Now,  let  it  be  remembered,  that  this  is  the  best  evi- 
dence which  we  can  have  that  any  of  the  books  of  the 
New  Testament  were  written  by  inspiration.  I  know, 
indeed,  that  Michaelis  places  the  whole  proof  of  inspi- 
ration on  the  promise  made  by  Christ  to  his  apostles ; 
but  while  it  is  admitted  that  this  is  a  weighty  conside- 
ration, it  does  not  appear  to  be  ecpial  in  force  to 
the  testimony  of  the  universal  church,  including  the 
apostles  themselves,  that  these  writings  were  penned 
under  the  guidance  of  the  Holy  Spirit ;  for  it  is  not 
perfectly  clear,  that  the  promise  referred  to  was  con- 
fined to  the  twelve.  Certainly  Paul,  who  was  not  of 
that  numl)er,  was  inspired  in  a  plenary  manner,  and 


MICHAELIS'S   OBJECTIONS   ANSWERED.  183 

mucli  tlie  larger  part  of  the  twelve  never  wrote  any- 
thing for  the  Canon.  There  is  nothing  in  the  New 
Testament  which  forbids  our  supposing,  that  other 
disciples  might  have  been  selected  to  write  for  the  use 
of  the  church.  We  do  not  wish  that  this  should  be 
believed,  in  regard  to  any  persons  without  evidence ; 
but  we  think  that  the  proof  exists,  and  arises  from  the 
undeniable  fact,  that  the  writings  of  these  two  men 
were  from  the  beginning  received  as  inspired.  And 
this  belief  must  have  prevailed  before  the  death  of  the 
apostles  ;  for  all  the  testimonies  concur  in  stating,  that 
the  gospel  of  Mark  was  seen  by  Peter,  and  that  of 
Luke  by  Paul,  and  approved  by  them  respectively. 
Now,  is  it  credible,  that  these  apostles,  and  John  who 
survived  them  many  years,  would  have  recommended 
to  the  Christian  church  the  productions  of  uninspired 
men  ? 

No  doubt  all  the  churches  at  that  time  looked  up  to 
the  apostles  for  guidance  in  all  matters  that  related  to 
the  rule  of  their  faith ;  and  a  general  opinion  that 
these  gospels  were  canonical  could  not  have  obtained 
without  their  concurrence.  The  hypothesis  of  Michaelis, 
that  they  were  recommended  as  useful  human  produc- 
tions, and  by  degrees  came  to  be  considered  as  inspired 
writings  is  in  itself  improbable,  and  repugnant  to  all 
the  testimony  which  has  come  down  to  us  on  the  sub- 
ject. If  this  had  been  the  fact,  they  would  never 
have  been  placed  among  the  books  universally  ac- 
knowledged, but  would  have  been  doubted  of,  or  dis- 
puted by  some.  The  difference  made  between  inspired 
books,  and  others  in  those  primitive  times,  was  as  great 
as  at  any  subsequent  period;  and  the  line  of  distinc- 
tion was  not  only  broad,  but  great  pains  were  taken  to 


184  MICHAELIS'S   OBJECTIOXS  ANSWERED. 

have  it  drawn  accurately;  and  when  the  common  opin- 
ion of  the  church  respecting  the  gospels  was  formed, 
there  was  no  difficulty  in  coming  to  the  certain  know- 
ledge of  the  truth.  For  thirty  years  and  more  before 
the  death  of  the  apostle  John  these  two  gospels  were 
in  circulation. 

If  any  doubt  had  existed  respecting  their  canonical 
authority,  would  not  the  churches  and  their  Elders 
Lave  had  recourse  to  this  infallible  authority  ?  The 
general  agreement  of  all  Christians  over  the  whole 
world,  respecting  most  of  the  books  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, doubtless,  should  be  attributed  to  the  authority 
of  the  apostles.  If,  then,  these  gospels  had  been  mere 
human  productions  they  might  have  been  read  pri- 
vately, but  never  could  have  found  a  place  in  the 
sacred  Canon.  The  objection  to  these  books  comes 
entirely  too  late  to  be  entitled  to  any  weight.  The 
opinion  of  a  modern  critic,  however  learned,  is  of  small 
consideration  when  opposed  to  the  testimony  of  the 
whole  primitive  church,  and  to  the  suffrage  of  the  uni- 
versal church  in  every  age  since  the  days  of  the 
apostles.  The  rule  of  the  learned  Iluet  already  cited 
is  sound,  viz.  ''That  all  those  books  should  be  deemed 
canonical  and  inspired,  which  were  received  as  such 
by  those  who  lived  nearest  to  the  time  when  they  were 
published." 

'^>.  But  if  we  should  for  the  sake  of  argument  con- 
cede that  no  books  should  be  considered  as  inspired, 
but  such  as  were  the  productions  of  apostles,  still  these 
gospels  would  not  be  excluded  from  the  Canon.  It  is 
a  fact,  in  which  there  is  a  wonderful  agreement  among 
the  Fathers,  tluit  Mark  wrote  his  gospel  from  the 
mouth  of  Peter;  that  is,  he  wrote  down  what  he  had 


MICIIAELIS'S    OBJECTIONS    ANSWERED.  185 

heard  this  apostle  every  day  declaring  in  his  public 
ministry.  And  Luke  did  the  same  in  regard  to  Paul's 
preaching.  These  gospels,  therefore,  may,  according 
to  this  testimony,  be  considered  as  more  probably  be- 
longing to  these  two  apostles,  than  to  the  evangelists 
who  penned  them.  They  were  little  more  it  would 
seem,  if  we  give  full  credit  to  the  testimony  which  has 
been  exhibited,  than  amanuenses  to  the  apostles  on 
whom  they  attended.  Paul  we  know  dictated  several 
of  his  Epistles  to  some  of  his  companions ;  and  if 
Mark  and  Luke  heard  the  gospel  from  Peter  and  Paul 
so  often  repeated,  that  they  were  perfect  masters  of 
their  respective  narratives,  and  then  committed  the 
same  to  writing,  are  they  not  virtually  the  productions 
of  these  apostles  which  have  been  handed  down  to  us  ? 
And  this  was  so  much  the  opinion  of  some  of  the 
Fathers,  that  they  speak  of  Mark's  gospel  as  Peter's, 
and  of  Luke's  as  Paul's. 

But  this  is  not  all.  These  gospels  were  shown  to 
these  apostles  and  received  their  approbation.  Thus 
speak  the  ancients  as  with  one  voice ;  and  if  they  had 
been  silent,  we  might  be  certain  from  the  circumstances 
of  the  case,  that  these  evangelists  would  never  have 
ventured  to  take  such  an  important  step  as  to  write 
and  publish  the  preaching  of  these  inspired  men,  with- 
out their  express  approbation.  Now  let  it  be  con- 
sidered, that  a  narrative  prepared  by  a  man  well 
acquainted  with  the  facts  related,  may  be  entirely 
correct  without  inspiration ;  but  of  this  we  cannot  be 
sure,  and  therefore  it  is  of  great  importance  to  have 
a  history  of  facts  from  men  who  were  rendered  in- 
fallible by  the  inspiration  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  It 
should  be  remembered,  however,  that  the  only  advan- 
16* 


18G  MICIIAELIS'S    OEJECTIOXS   ANSWERED. 

tage  of  inspiration  in  giving  sucli  a  narrative,  consists 
in  the  proper  selection  of  facts  and  circumstances,  and 
in  the  infallible  certainty  of  the  writing.  Suppose, 
then,  that  an  uninspired  man  should  prepare  an  account 
of  such  transactions  as  he  had  seen  or  heard  from  eye- 
witnesses of  undoubted  veracity,  and  that  his  narrative 
should  be  submitted  to  the  inspection  of  an  apostle, 
and  receive  his  full  approbation;  might  not  such  a 
book  be  considered  as  inspired  ?  If  in  the  original  com- 
position there  should  have  crept  in  some  errors,  (for  to 
err  is  human,)  the  inspired  reviewer  would  of  course 
point  them  out  and  have  them  corrected ;  now,  such  a 
book  would  be  for  all  important  purposes  an  inspired 
volume ;  and  would  deserve  a  place  in  the  Canon  of 
Holy  Scripture.  If  any  credit  then  is  due  to  the  tes- 
timony of  the  Christians  Fathers,  the  gospels  of  Mark 
and  Luke  are  canonical  books;  for,  as  was  before 
stated,  there  is  a  general  concurrence  among  them, 
that  these  evangelists  submitted  their  w^orks  to  the 
inpection,  and  received  the  approbation  of  the  apostles 
Peter  and  Paul. 

4.  Finally,  the  internal  evidence  is  as  strong  in 
favour  of  the  gospels  under  consideration,  as  of  any 
otlier  books  of  the  New  Testament.  There  is  no 
reason  to  think  that  Mark  and  Luke  were  capable  of 
writing  with  such  perfect  simplicity  and  propriety 
witliout  the  aid  of  inspiration,  or  the  assistance  of  in- 
FI)ired  men.  If  we  reject  these  books  from  the  Canon, 
we  must  give  up  the  argument  derived  from  internal 
evidence  for  the  inspiration  of  the  sacred  Scriptures 
altogether.  It  is  true  the  learned  professor  whose 
oi)ijiions  wu  arc  opposing,  has  said,  "The  oftener  I 
compare  their  writings  (Mark's  and  Luke's)  with  those 


MICHAELIS'S   OBJECTIONS    ANSWERED.  187 

of  Matthew  and  John,  the  greater  are  my  doubts." 
And  speaking  in  another  place  of  Mark,  he  says,  ''  In 
some  immaterial  instances  he  seems  to  have  erred," 
and  gives  it  as  his  opinion,  "  That  they  who  under- 
take to  reconcile  Mark  with  Matthew,  or  to  show  that 
he  is  nowhere  corrected  by  John,  experience  great 
difficulty,  and  have  not  seldom  to  resort  to  unnatural 
explanations."  But  the  learned  professor  has  not 
mentioned  any  particular  cases  of  irreconcilable  dis- 
crepancies between  this  evangelist  and  Matthew ;  nor 
does  he  indicate  in  what  statements  he  is  corrected  by 
John.  Until  something  of  this  kind  is  exhibited, 
general  remarks  of  this  sort  are  deserving  of  no  con- 
sideration. 

To  harmonize  the  evangelists  has  always  been  found 
a  difficult  task,  but  this  does  not  prove  that  they  con- 
tradict each  other,  or  that  their  accounts  are  irrecon- 
cilable. Many  things  which,  at  first  sight,  appear 
contradictory,  are  found,  upon  closer  examination,  to 
be  perfectly  harmonious ;  and  if  there  be  some  things 
which  commentators  have  been  unable  satisfactorily  to 
reconcile,  it  is  no  more  than  what  might  be  expected 
in  narratives  so  concise,  and  in  which  a  strict  regard 
to  chronological  order  did  not  enter  into  the  plan  of 
the  writers.  And  if  this  objection  be  permitted  to 
influence  our  judgment  in  this  case,  it  will  operate 
against  the  inspiration  of  the  other  evangelists  as  well 
as  Mark ;  but  in  our  apprehension,  w^hen  the  discre- 
pancies are  impartially  considered,  and  all  the  circum- 
stances of  the  facts  candidly  and  accurately  weighed, 
there  will  be  found  no  solid  ground  of  objection  to  the 
inspiration  of  any  of  these  gospels  ; — certainly  nothing 
which  can  counterbalance  the  strong  evidence  arising 


188  MICHAELIS'S    OBJECTIONS   ANSWERED. 

from  tlic  style  and  spirit  of  the  writers.  In  what  re- 
spects these  two  evangelists  fall  short  of  the  others, 
has  never  been  shown  ;  upon  the  most  thorough  exami- 
nation and  fair  comparison  of  these  inimitable  pro- 
ductions, they  appear  to  be  all  indited  by  the  same 
Spirit,  and  to  possess  the  same  superiority  to  all  human 
compositions. 

Compare  these  gospels  with  those  which  are  acknow- 
ledged to  have  been  written  by  uninspired  men,  and 
you  will  need  no  nice  power  of  discrimination  to  see 
the  difference  ;  the  first  appear  in  every  respect  worthy 
of  God ;  the  last  betray,  in  every  page,  the  weakness 
of  man. 

I  beg  leave  here  to  use  the  words  of  an  excellent 
writer,  in  a  late  work :  "  The  gospel  of  Luke  was 
always,  from  the  very  moment  of  its  publication, 
received  as  inspired  as  well  as  authentic.  It  was  pub- 
lished during  the  lives  of  John,  Peter,  and  Paul, 
and  was  approved  and  sanctioned  by  them  as  in- 
spired ;  and  received  as  such  by  the  churches,  in  con- 
formity to  the  Jewish  Canon,  which  decided  on  the 
genuineness  or  spuriousness  of  the  inspired  books  of 
tlieir  own  church,  by  receiving  him  as  a  prophet,  who 
was  acknowledged  as  such  by  the  testimony  of  an 
establlslied  prophet.  On  the  same  grounds  Luke  must 
be  considered  as  a  true  evangelist;  his  gospel  being 
dictated  and  ap])roved  by  an  apostle,  of  whose  authority 
tlitTe  can  be  no  question.  There  is,  likewise,  sufficient 
eviik'uce  to  warrant  the  conclusions  of  Whitby — tliat 
botli  Mark  and  Luke  were  of  tlie  number  of  the 
seventy,  who  had  a  connnission  from  Christ  to  preach 
the  gospel,  not  to  tlie  Jews  only,  but  to  the  other  na- 
tions—  that  the   Holy    Ghost   fell   on    these   among 


MICHAELIS'S    OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED.  189 

the  numbers  of  the  seventy,  who  formed  a  part  of  the 
hundred  and  twenty,  assembled  on  the  day  of  Pente- 
cost, and  from  that  time  they  were  guided  by  the 
influences  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  in  writing  or  preaching 
the  gospel.  And  if  the  universal  church,  from  the 
first  ages,  received  this  gospel  as  divinely  inspired, 
on  these  satisfactory  grounds,  distance  of  time  cannot 
weaken  the  evidences  of  truth,  and  we  are  required 
to  receive  it  on  the  same  testimony.  That  which  satis- 
fied those  who  had  much  better  means  of  judging, 
should  certainly  satisfy  us  at  this  time."* 

There  is  something  reprehensible,  not  to  say  im- 
pious, in  that  bold  spirit  of  modern  criticism,  which 
has  led  many  eminent  Biblical  scholars,  especially  in 
Germany,  first  to  attack  the  authority  of  particular 
books  of  Scripture,  and  next  to  call  in  question  the 
inspiration  of  the  whole  volume.  To  what  extent  this 
licentiousness  of  criticism  has  been  carried,  I  need  not 
say;  for  it  is  a  matter  of  notoriety,  that  of  late  the 
most  dangerous  enemies  of  the  Bible  have  been  found 
occupying  the  place  of  its  advocates ;  and  the  critical 
art  which  was  intended  for  the  correction  of  the  text, 
and  the  interpretation  of  the  sacred  books,  has,  in  a 
most  unnatui-al  way,  been  turned  against  the  Bible ; 
and  finally,  the  inspiration  of  all  the  sacred  books  has 
not  only  been  questioned,  but  scornfully  rejected  hy 
Professors  of  Theology!  And  these  men,  while 
living  on  endowments  which  pious  benevolence  had 
consecrated  for  the  support  of  religion,  and  openly 
connected  with  churches  whose  creeds  contain  orthodox 
opinions,  have  so  far  forgotten  their  high  responsibili- 
ties, and  neglected  the  claims  which  the  church  had 
*  New  Testament,  by  the  Rev.  George  Townsend.  Vol.  i.  p.  5.^ 


190  GERMAN    SCEPTICISM. 

on  them,  as  to  exert  all  tlieir  ingenuity  and  learning 
to  sap  the  foundation  of  that  system  which  they  were 
sworn  to  defend.  They  have  had  the  shameless  hardi- 
hood to  send  forth  into  the  world,  books  under  their 
own  names,  which  contain  fully  as  much  of  the  poison 
of  infidelity  as  ever  distilled  from  the  pens  of  the  most 
malignant  deists,  whose  writings  have  fallen  as  a  curse 
upon  the  world.  The  only  efiectual  security  which  we 
have  against  this  new  and  most  dangerous  form  of 
infidelity,  is  found  in  the  spirit  of  the  age,  which  is  so 
superficial  and  cursory  in  its  reading,  that,  however 
many  elaborate  critical  works  may  be  published  in 
foreign  languages,  very  few  of  them  will  be  read,  even 
by  theological  students,  in  this  country. 

Even  among  those  who  profess  to  be  orthodox  in 
doctrine,  a  new  and  dangerous  opinion  of  the  nature 
and  degree  of  inspiration  possessed  by  the  writers  of 
the  New  Testament,  has  been  broached.  It  is,  that 
all  true  Christians  as  they  possess  the  Holy  Spirit, 
are,  in  a  measure,  inspired ;  and  that  the  inspiration 
of  the  apostles  differed  from  that  of  other  Christians 
only  in  degree.  But  that  such  plenary  inspiration  as 
l)recludes  tlie  possibility  of  error,  was  never  granted 
to  any  man. 

According  to  this  theory,  inspiration  differs  not  at 
all  from  that  spiritual  illumination  which  is  granted  to 
every  true  Christian.  But  this  brings  no  new  truths 
to  light,  and  secures  none  from  all  error  in  his 
opinions,  and  in  his  manner  of  communicating  them. 
It  is  a  theory  which  destroys  the  certainty  and  infalli- 
bility of  the  rule  of  faitli.  For  if  the  apostles  were 
Bu]>juct  to  error,  every  man  when  he  finds  anything  in 
thoii'  writings  which  he  dislikes,  will  be  at  liberty  to 


GERMAN   SCEPTICISM.  191 

suppose  that  the  sacred  writer  has,  in  that  particular, 
fallen  into  error.  Unless  the  sacred  Scriptures  can 
be  referred  to  as  an  infallible  standard,  their  use  is  in 
a  great  measure  destroyed.  No  inspiration  but  that 
which  is  infallible  will  at  all  answer  the  purpose  for 
which  the  Bible  was  written. 


192  THE   GOSPEL   OF   JOHN. 


SECTION  VIII. 


THE   GOSPEL  OF  JOHN — ^LTFE   OF  THIS   EVANGELIST — OCCA- 
SION AND  TIME  OF  HIS  WRITING CANONICAL  AUTHORITY 

INDISPUTABLE. 

The  fourth  gospel  was  written  by  John,  the  son  of 
Zcbedee  and  Salome,  who  was  originally  a  fisherman 
of  Galilee,  and  brother  of  James ;  and,  we  may  sup- 
pose, was  the  younger  of  the  brothers,  as  he  is  gene- 
rally mentioned  last,  and  is  commonly  reported  to 
have  been  the  youngest  of  all  Christ's  disciples.  They 
were  plain  uneducated  men,  as  their  occupation  suffi- 
ciently indicates.  Probably  they  had  been  disciples 
of  John  the  Baptist,  and  some  have  conjectured  that 
John  the  Evangelist  was  one  of  the  two  to  whom  John 
the  Baptist  pointed  out  Jesus,  and  who  went  after  him 
to  his  lodging.  The  other  we  know  was  Andrew, 
Simon  Peter's  brother ;  and  John,  in  other  cases,  has 
concealed  his  own  name,  where  anything  is  mentioned 
which  could  be  interpreted  to  his  honour. 

"Why  these  two  brothers  were  surnamed  Boanerges, 
by  the  Lord,  does  not  clearly  appear,  unless  we  sup- 
pose that  the  names  were  prophetic  of  the  manner  of 
tlieir  preaching,  when  commissioned  as  apostles.  But 
tliere  are  no  facts  recorded,  from  which  any  inference 
c;in  be  drawn  in  relation  to  this  subject.  John  has 
been  long  celebrated  for  his  affectionate  temper,  and 


LIFE    OF    JOHN.  193 

for  tlie  suavity  of  Iiis  manners,  which  appear  very 
remarkably  in  all  his  writings  ;  but  there  is  no  evi- 
dence that  he  was  naturally  of  a  meek  temper.  The 
facts  in  the  gospel  history  would  seem  to  indicate  that 
both  he  and  his  brother  were  of  a  fiery  temper,  and 
by  nature  very  ambitious;  and  some  have  supposed 
that  their  surname  had  relation  to  this  ardour  of  tem- 
per,— but  this  is  not  very  probable. 

We  know  that  John  was  the  bosom  friend  of  Jesus, 
the  disciple  whom  he  loved  with  a  peculiar  afiection  ; 
and  that  he  was  admitted  to  all  those  scenes  of  a  very 
interesting  nature,  from  which  most  of  the  other  dis- 
ciples were  excluded. 

It  is  also  certain  that  he  was  present  at  the  cruci- 
fixion ;  stood  near  the  cross  in  company  with  Mary 
the  mother  of  our  Lord ;  and  that  he  remained  at  the 
place  until  the  body  of  Jesus,  now  dead,  was  pierced 
with  a  spear.  On  the  morning  of  the  resurrection 
John  visited  the  sepulchre,  in  company  with  Peter, 
and  was  present  when  Christ  made  his  first  appear- 
dnce  to  the  eleven  ;  and  when  he  manifested  himself 
to  his  disciples  at  the  sea  of  Tiberias.  After  Pente- 
cost he  was  with  Peter  in  the  temple,  when  the  lame 
man  was  healed ;  he  accompanied  Peter  also  to  Sama- 
ria, and  was  present  at  the  council  of  Jerusalem. 
From  the  book  of  Revelation  we  learn,  that  this 
evangelist  was  for  a  time  an  exile  in  the  island  of 
Patmos,  for  the  testimony  of  Jesus,  where  he  was 
favoured  with  wonderful  visions  and  communications 
from  the  Lord. 

It  seems  to  have  been  intimated  to  him  by  his 
Lord,  at  the  sea  of  Tiberias,  that  he  should  survive 
the  destruction  of  Jerusalem ;  for  when  Peter  asked, 
17 


104       CANUXICAL  AUTnORITT  OF  JOHN". 

*'  Lord,  what  shall  this  man  do  ?  Jesus  saith  unto  him, 
if  I  will  that  he  tarry  till  I  come,  what  is  that  to 
thee  ?"  which  saying  gave  rise  to  an  opinion  among 
the  disciples  that  that  disciple  should  not  die  :  "  Yet 
Jesus  said  not  unto  him,  he  shall  not  die;  but  if  I  will 
tliat  he  tarry  till  I  come,  what  is  that  to  thee?"  And 
this  accords  very  well  with  the  testimonies  of  the 
ancients,  who  inform  us  that  John  lived  to  a  great 
age. 

Irex.eus,  in  two  places  of  his  work  against  Here- 
tics, says,  "That  John  lived  to  the  time  of  Trajan/' 
which  will  bring  us  down  to  A.  D.  98.  Eusebius 
understands  Clement  of  Alexandria  to  say  the  same 
thing.  Origen  also  testifies,  "  That  John  having 
lived  long  in  Asia  was  buried  at  Ej^hesus."  Poly- 
crates,  who  wrote  in  the  second  century,  and  was 
bishop  of  Ephesus,  asserts,  "  That  John  was  buried  in 
that  city." 

Jerome,  in  his  book  of  Illustrious  Men,  and  in  his 
work  against  Jovinian,  says,  "  That  the  apostle  John 
lived  in  Asia  to  the  time  of  Trajan ;  and  dying  at  a 
great  age,  in  the  sixty-eighth  year  of  our  Lord's  pas- 
sion, was  buried  near  the  city  of  Ephesus."  This 
account  would  bring  down  the  death  of  John  to  A.  D. 
100,  in  which  year  it  is  placed  by  this  writer  in  his 
Chronicon.  The  testimonies  for  the  genuineness  of 
the  gospel  of  John  are  as  full  and  satisfactory  as 
could  be  desired. 

IiiEXiEUS  tells  us,  "That  the  evangelist  John  de- 
signed, by  his  gospel,  to  confute  the  errors  wdiich 
Cerinthus  had  infused  into  the  minds  of  the  people, 
and  had  been  infused  by  those  who  were  called 
Nicolaitons ;    and    to   convince  them   that    there  was 


CANONICAL   AUTHORITY   OF   JOIIA^'S    GOSPEL.     195 

one  God,  who  made  all  things  by  his  Word ;  and  not, 
as  they  imagined,  one  who  was  the  Creator,  and  an- 
other who  was  the  Father  of  our  Lord ;  one  who  was  the 
Son  of  the  Creator,  and  another  w^ho  was  the  Christ, 
who  continued  impassible,  and  descended  upon  Jesus, 
the  Son  of  the  Creator." 

Jerome  fully  confirms  this  testimony  of  Irenceus, 
and  says,  "  That  w^hen  St.  John  was  in  Asia,  where 
there  arose  the  heresies  of  Ebion  and  Cerinthus,  and 
others,  who  denied  that  Christ  was  come  in  the  flesh — 
that  is,  denied  his  divine  nature,  whom  he,  in  his 
Epistle,  calls  Antichrists,  and  St.  Paul  frequently  con- 
demns in  his  Epistles — he  was  forced  by  almost  all 
the  bishops  of  Asia,  and  the  deputations  of  many 
other  churches,  to  write  more  plainly  concerning  the 
divinity  of  our  Saviour,  and  to  soar  aloft  in  a  dis- 
course on  the  Word,  not  more  bold  than  happy." 

"It  is  related  in  ecclesiastical  history,  that  John, 
when  solicited  by  the  brethren  to  write,  answered,  that 
lie  would  not  do  it  unless  a  public  day  of  fasting  and 
prayer  was  appointed  to  implore  God's  assistance ; 
which  being  done,  and  the  solemnity  being  honoured 
with  a  satisfactory  revelation  from  God,  he  broke  forth 
into  these  words,  In  tlie  beginning  ivas  the  Word.,''  cfc. 

Jerome  in  his  book  of  Illustrious  Men,  says,  "John 
wrote  a  gospel  at  the  desire  of  the  bishops  of  Asia, 
against  Cerinthus,  and  other  heretics,  especially  the 
doctrines  of  the  Ebionites,  then  springing  up,  who  say 
that  Christ  did  not  exist  before  the  birth  of  Mary:  for 
which  reason  he  w^as  obliged  to  declare  his  divine  na- 
tivity. Another  reason  of  his  writing  is  also  men- 
tioned, which  is,  that  after  having  read  the  volumes 
of  Matthew,  Mark,  and  Luke,  he  expressed  his  appro- 


lOG     CANONICAL   AUTHORITY   OF   JOHX  S    GOSPEL. 

bation  of  their  liistorj  as  true:  but  observed,  tbat 
they  had  recorded  an  account  of  but  one  year  of  our 
Lord's  ministry,  even  the  last  after  the  imprisonment 
of  John,  (the  Baptist)  in  which  also  he  suffered. 
Omitting  therefore  that  year,  (in  a  great  measure)  the 
history  of  which  had  been  written  by  the  other  three, 
he  related  the  acts  of  the  preceding  time,  before  John 
was  shut  up  in  prison,  as  may  appear  to  those  who 
read  the  four  evangelists,  which  may  serve  to  account 
for  the  seeming  difference  between  John  and  the  rest.'* 

Augustine,  in  conformity  with  the  account  of 
Jerome,  says,  "  That  this  evangelist  wrote  concerning 
the  co-eternal  divinity  of  Christ  against  heretics.'* 
Lampe  has  called  in  question  these  early  testimonies 
respecting  the  occasion  of  writing  this  gospel,  and  has 
attempted  to  prove  by  argument  that  John  had  no 
view  to  any  particular  heretics,  in  the  commencement 
of  his  gospel.  Lardner  has  taken  the  same  side,  and 
adduces  several  arguments  in  favour  of  Lampe's  opi- 
nion. TiTMAN  adopts  the  same  opinion.  But  the  proba- 
ble reasonings  of  ingenious  men  when  opposed  to  such  a 
weight  of  ancient  testimony,  in  relation  to  a  matter  of 
fact  which  occurred  at  no  long  distance  before  their 
time,  deserve  very  little  consideration.  And,  indeed, 
after  reading  Lardner's  arguments,  I  must  say  that 
they  appear  to  me  to  have  no  high  degree  of  plausi- 
bility. 

That  Cerinthus  lived  in  the  time  of  the  apostle 
John,  and  was  known  to  him,  is  evident  from  another 
testimony  of  IreNtEUS,  which  has  been  often  quoted. 
It  is  a  story  which,  he  says,  some  persons  in  his  time 
had  from  Polycarp,  the  disciple  of  John  ;  which  is 
as  follows  :  "  John  going  to  a  certain  bath  at  Ephesus, 


CANONICAL   AUTHORITY   OF   JOIIN'S    GOSPEL.      19T 

and  perceiving  that  Cerintlius,  that  noted  arch-heretic, 
was  in  the  bath,  immediately  leaped  out,  and  said. 
Let  us  go  home  lest  the  bath  should  fall  down  upon 
us,  having  in  it  such  a  heretic  as  Cerinthus,  that  enemy 
of  truth." 

For  the  testimony  of  Ireneeus  see  remarks  on  the 
gospel  of  Matthew.  To  which  we  may  here  add  the 
fanciful  reason  given  by  Irenseus  why  the  number  of 
gospels  was  four,  and  no  more  nor  less.  "  Nor  can 
there  be  more  or  fewer  gospels  than  these.  For  as 
there  are  four  regions  of  the  world  in  which  we  live, 
and  four  cardinal  wdnds,  and  the  church  is  spread 
over  all  the  earth,  and  the  gospel  is  the  pillar  and  sup- 
port of  the  church,  and  the  breath  of  life,  in  like  man- 
ner it  is  fit  it  should  have  four  pillars,  breathing  on  all 
sides  incorruption  and  refreshing  mankind,  whence  it 
is  manifest  that  the  Logos,  the  maker  of  all  things, 
who  sits  upon  the  cherubim,  and  holds  together  all 
things,  having  appeared  to  men,  has  given  us  a  gospel 
four-fold  in  its  form,  but  held  together  by  one  Spirit."* 

In  another  part  of  this  work  this  Father  gives  char- 
acteristics of  this  gospel,  thus — 

"  The  gospel  according  to  John  declares  his  princely, 
complete,  and  glorious  generation  from  the  Father, 
saying,  '  In  the  beginning  was  the  Logos,  and  the 
Logos  was  with  God,  and  the  Logos  was  God.'  "f 

Augustine,  moreover,  asserts,  "  That  John  is  the 
last  of  the  evangelists."  Chrysostom  supposes,  that 
John  did  not  write  his  gospel  till  after  the  destruction 
of  Jerusalem.  Paulinus  says,  ''  It  had  been  handed 
down  by  tradition,  that  John  survived  all  the  other 
apostles,  and  wrote  the  last  of  the  four  evangelists, 
*  Tren.  Con.  Her.  lib.  iii.  c.  11.  f  Ibid. 

17* 


108      CANONICAL   AUTHORITY    OF   JOHN  S    GOSPEL. 

and  so  as  to  confirm  their  most  certain  history.*' 
Again,  he  observes,  "  That  in  the  beginning  of  John's 
gospel  all  heretics  are  confuted." 

CosMAS  of  Alexandria,  informs  us,  "  That  when 
John  dwelt  at  Ephesus,  there  were  delivered  to  him 
bj  the  faithful  the  writings  of  the  other  three  evan- 
gelists. Receiving  them,  he  said,  that  what  they  had 
written  was  well  written ;  but  some  things  were  omit- 
ted by  them  which  were  needful  to  be  related.  And 
being  desired  by  the  faithful,  he  also  published  his 
writing,  as  a  kind  of  supplement  to  the  rest." 

Isidore  of  Seville,  says,  "  That  John  wrote  the  last 
in  Asia."  Theophylact  computed  that  John  wrote 
about  two  and  thirty  years  after  Christ's  ascension. 
EUTHYMIUS  says,  "  That  this  gospel  was  not  written 
imtil  long  after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem."  Nl- 
CEPHORUS,  "  That  John  wrote  last  of  all,  about  six  and 
thirty  years  after  our  Lord's  ascension  to  heaven." 
Having  exhibited  the  testimonies  of  the  ancients,  it 
may  not  be  amiss  to  set  down  the  opinions  of  some  of 
the  moderns,  relative  to  the  time  when  this  gospel  was 
written. 

Mill,  Fabricius,  Le  Clerc,  Jones,  and  many 
others,  agree  that  John  wrote  his  gospel  about  the  year 
of  our  Lord  97.  Wetstein  thinks  it  might  have  been 
written  about  thirty-two  years  after  the  ascension. 
Basnage  and  Lampe  are  inclined  to  believe  that  it 
was  written  before  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem. 
"Whl^ton  and  Lardner  adopt  the  same  opinion.  The 
gospel  of  John  is  cited  by  ClExMENT  of  Home ;  by 
Barnabas  ;  by  Ignatius  ;  by  Theophilus  of  Anti- 
och  ;  ])y  luENyEUS ;  and  by  Clement  of  Alexandria, 
in  more  than  forty  instances.      And  by  all  those  wri- 


tatian's  diatessaeon.  199 

ters  who  lived  with,  or  immediately  after  the  apostles, 
this  gospel  is  appealed  to  as  inspired  Scripture ;  and 
the  same  is  the  fact  in  regard  to  Origen,  Jerome 
Augustine,  and  all  the  Fathers,  who  came  after  this 
period.  Nearly  the  whole  of  this  gospel  could  be  made 
up  from  citations  of  the  writers  of  the  first  four  centu- 
ries. It  was  never  excluded  from  any  church,  or  any 
catalogue  of  the  books  of  the  New  Testament,  and 
therefore  possesses  every  evidence  of  being  canonical, 
■which  any  reasonable  man  could  demand. 

That  the  number  of  genuine  gospels  was  four  and 
no  more,  is  evident  from  the  testimony  of  all  the  Fa- 
thers who  have  spoken  of  them ;  and  especially  from 
the  fanciful  reason  assigned  by  Irenseus  to  prove  that 
there  could  be  no  more  nor  fewer.  The  same  is  mani- 
fest from  the  fact  that  Tatian,  a  learned  disciple  of 
Justin,  who  afterwards  became  the  founder  of  a  sect 
of  ascetics,  out  of  the  four  gospels  formed  a  volume 
called  Diatessaron."^  In  this,  however,  he  left  out 
such  things  as  did  not  suit  his  views.  But  the  exist- 
ence of  such  a  book  which  is  attested  by  Irenaeus,  Eu- 
sebius,  Jerome  and  Theodoret,  shows  that  the  num- 
ber of  gospels  commonly  received  by  heretics,  as  well 
as  catholics,  was  four  and  no  more.  The  same  might 
be  proved  from  the  writings  of  Julian  the  apostate. 

*  Harmony  of  the  four  gospels. 


200        THE  ACTS  OF  TUE  APOSTLES. 


SECTION  IX. 


THE    ACTS    OF    THE    APOSTLES — LUKE    THE    AUTHOR — CA- 
NONICAL  AUTHORITY   UNDISPUTED    BY   THE    FATHERS 

REJECTED    ONLY   BY    HERETICS. 

That  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  is  the  writing  of 
Luke  the  evangelist,  is  manifest  from  the  dedication 
to  Thcophilus,  in  which  reference  is  made  to  his  gos- 
pel, which  was  first  written.  And  it  is  also  evident 
from  the  uniform  testimony  of  all  antiquity ;  the  fact 
never  having  been  once  questioned  by  any  member  of 
the  catholic  church.  All  that  has  been  argued  in  vin- 
dication of  the  inspiration  and  canonical  authority  of 
Luke's  gospel,  is  applicable  to  the  Acts  of  the  Apos- 
tles, and  need  not  be  here  repeated. 

But  it  is  pleasant  to  read  the  explicit  testimonies  of 
the  Fathers  to  the  sacred  books  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment :  I  will,  therefore,  bring  forward  the  most  im- 
portant. 

iRENiEUS  repeatedly  cites  passages  from  this  book, 
saying,  "  Luke,  the  disciple  and  follower  of  Paul,  says 
thus."  "  Luke,  the  inseparable  companion  and  fellow 
labourer  of  I'aul,  wrote  thus."  He  takes  particular 
notice  of  Luke's  using  the  first  person  plural,  "  we 
vndeavoured  —  we  came  —  we  went  —  we  sat  down — 
wc   spoke,"    &c. ;    and   enters   into   some   discussion 


LUKE   THE  AUTHOE   OF   THE  ACTS.  201 

to  prove  "  Luke's  fitness  for  writing  a  just  and  true 
history." 

In  another  place  he  shows,  *'  That  Luke's  Acts  of 
the  Apostles  ought  to  be  equally  received  with  his 
gospel ;  for  that  in  them  he  has  carefully  delivered 
to  us  the  truth,  and  given  to  us  a  sure  rule  for  sal- 
vation." Again  he  says,  "Paul's  account  of  his 
going  to  Jerusalem  exactly  agrees  with  Luke's  in 
the  Acts." 

Clemens  Alexandrinus  citing  Paul's  speech  at 
Athens,  introduces  it  thus,  "  So  Luke  in  the  Acts  of 
the  Apostles  relates."  Tertullian  cites  several 
passages  out  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  which  he  calls, 
"  Qommentarius  Liicse,  The  Commentary  of  Luke." 
Origen  ascribes  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  to  Luke. 
EuSEBius  says,  ''  Luke  has  left  us  two  inspired 
volumes,  The  Gospel  and  The  Acts."  Jerome  ex- 
pressly asserts,  "  That  the  Acts  was  the  composition 
of  Luke."  The  Syriac  Version  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment ascribes  the  Acts  to  Luke ;  and  in  some  very 
ancient  manuscripts  of  the  New  Testament  his  name 
is  prefixed  to  this  book. 

To  this  uniform  body  of  ancient  testimony  there  is 
nothing  which  can  be  objected,  except  that  the  author 
of  the  Synopsis,  commonly  ascribed  to  Athanasius, 
says,  "  Peter  dictated  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  but 
Luke  wrote  them."  But  if  this  were  true  it  would  not 
in  the  least  detract  from  the  authority  of  the  book, 
but  rather  increase  it.  One  testimony,  however,  can 
be  of  no  avail  against  so  many ;  and  we  know  that 
Luke  knew  most  of  the  facts  recorded  in  this  book  by 
his  own  personal  observation,  and  needed  no  one  to 
dictate  them  to  him.     Besides,  Peter  was  not  an  eye- 


202  THE   ACTS   CAXOXICAL. 

witness  of  tlie  greater  number  of  the  facts  related  in 
this  book. 

The  time  when  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  was  written 
may  be  determined  pretty  accurately,  by  the  time 
wlien  the  history  which  it  contains  terminates ;  that  is 
about  A.  D.  62 ;  for  no  doubt  he  began  to  write  soon 
after  he  left  Rome. 

That  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  is  of  canonical  autho- 
rity, is  proved  from  its  having  a  place  in  all  the  ancient 
catalogues  of  the  books  of  the  New  Testament.  The 
same  is  evinced  by  the  numerous  citations  from  this 
book  by  the  early  Fathers,  who  explicitly  appeal  to 
it  as  of  divine  authority — as  an  inspired  book.  It  is 
plainly  referred  to  in  more  instances  than  one  by  Cle- 
ment of  Rome,  the  fellow-labourer  of  Paul.  Poly- 
carp  the  disciple  of  John  also  cites  a  passage  from  the 
Acts,  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Philippians.  It  is  cited  by 
JusTix  Martyr  in  his  Exhortation  to  the  Greeks.  It 
is  distinctly  cited  by  iRENiEUS  more  than  thirty  times, 
in  some  of  which  instances  it  is  expressly  called  Scrip- 
ture ;  and  the  credit  and  authority  of  the  book  are 
largely  discussed  in  his  work  against  heretics. 

The  citations  of  Tertullian  from  this  book  are 
too  numerous  to  be  particularized.  lie  also  quotes  it 
expressly  under  the  name  of  Scripture  ;  "  Which  part 
of  Scripture,"  says  he,  "  they  who  do  not  receive, 
must  deny  the  descent  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  be  igno- 
rant of  the  infant  state  of  the  Christian  church."* 

This  book  was  also  constantly  read  as  Scripture 
in  the  weekly  assemblies  of  Christians  all  over  the 
world. 

Eiom  the  testimonies  adduced  above  it  will  appear, 
*  Dc  Pra;scriplionc. 


THE   ACTS   CANONICAL.  203 

witli  convincing  evidence,  how  unfounded  is  the  opinion 
of  some  learned  men,  that  the  Acts  in  the  early  period 
of  the  church  was  very  little  known  comparatively,  and 
very  little  esteemed.  This  opinion  has  been  favoured 
by  such  men  as  Father  Simon  and  Dr.  Mill ;  and  has 
no  other  foundation  than  a  passage  in  the  Prolegomena 
to  the  Acts,  ascribed  to  Chrysostom,  the  genuineness 
of  which  is  very  doubtful.  But  if  Chrysostom  was 
the  author  of  this  passage,  how  little  can  it  weigh 
against  such  a  host  of  witnesses  ?  The  passage  referred 
to  is,  "  This  book  is  not  so  much  as  known  to  many  ; 
they  know  neither  the  book  nor  by  whom  it  was 
written."  Now  the  same  might  be  asserted  respecting 
all  the  books  in  the  Canon.  There  are  many  persons 
ignorant  of  what  they  contain  and  unacquainted  with 
their  object.  But  there  is  no  need  to  dwell  longer  on 
this  objection. 

The  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  therefore,  has  an  indis- 
putable claim  to  a  place  in  the  sacred  Canon.  No 
better  or  stronger  evidence  can  be  desired.  It  is  true 
that  some  of  the  earliest  heretics  did  not  receive  this 
book  as  canonical.  Tertullian  informs  us  that  it 
was  rejected  by  Cerdo,  the  master  of  Marcion,  and 
some  others  whom  he  does  not  name,  but  whom  he 
refutes. 

Philastrius  informs  us  that  the  Corinthians  did 
not  receive  this  book.  And  Augustine  tells  us,  that 
the  Manichees  did  not,  because  they  considered  Manes 
to  be  the  Paraclete,  promised  by  the  Saviour ;  but  in 
the  Acts,  it  is  declared  to  have  been  the  Holy  Ghost 
which  descended  on  the  apostles  on  the  day  of 
Pentecost. 


204  THE   ACTS   CANONICAL. 

*'But,"  says  Father  Simon,  "let  us  leave  these 
enthusiasts,  -who  had  no  other  reason  for  rejecting  the 
books  received  by  the  whole  church,  except  that  they 
did  not  suit  with  the  idea  which  they  had  formed  of 
the  Christian  religion." 


EPISTLES   OF   PAUL.  205 


SECTION  X. 


TESTIMONIES     TO     THE     CANONICAL    AUTHORITY     Or     THE 
FOURTEEN   EPISTLES    OF   PAUL. 

On  the  subject  of  Paul's  epistles,  there  is  a  universal 
consent  among  the  ancients,  except  as  it  relates  to  the 
epistle  to  the  Hebrews ;  which  having  been  published 
without  the  apostle's  name  and  usual  salutation,  many 
conjectured  that  it  was  the  production  of  another  per- 
son ;  and  while  some  ascribed  it  to  Barnabas,  others 
thought  that  either  Clement  or  Luke  was  the  writer. 
There  seems  to  have  been  a  difference  between  the 
eastern  and  western  churches  on  this  subject ;  for  the 
Greeks  appear  to  have  entertained  no  doubts  in  regard 
to  Paul's  being  the  author  of  this  epistle :  it  was  only 
among  the  Latins  that  its  genuineness  was  a  matter 
of  uncertainty.  And  the  most  learned  among  these 
adopted  the  opinion,  that  it  was  the  production  of 
Paul ;  and  by  degrees  its  authority  was  fully  estab- 
lished in  the  west  as  well  as  the  east.  The  true  state 
of  the  case  will,  however,  appear  more  clearly  by  citing 
the  testimonies  of  the  Fathers,  than  by  any  general 
representation. 

Although   Clement,  the   fellow-labourer   of  Paul, 
frequently  cites  passages  from  the  gospels  and  epistles, 
yet  he  never  expressly  mentions  any  book  of  the  New 
18 


20G  EPISTLES    or    PAUL. 

Testament,  except  Paul's  first  ei:)istle  to  the  Corin- 
tliians  ;  to  Avliom  also  Clement's  epistle  was  addressed. 
Ills  -words  are,  "  Take  into  your  hands  the  epistle  of 
blessed  Paul  the  apostle.  What  did  he  at  first  write 
to  YOU  in  the  beginning  of  the  gospel  ?  Verily  he  did 
by  the  Spirit  admonish  you  concerning  himself,  and 
Ceplias  and  Apollos,  because  that  even  then  you  did 
form  parties."  There  are  in  this  epistle  of  Clement 
many  other  passages  in  which  the  words  of  Paul  are 
cited,  but  this  is  the  only  one  in  which  his  name  is 
mentioned. 

Hermas  and  Ignatius  also  often  quote  the  words 
of  Paul's  epistles,  but  the  books  from  which  they  are 
taken  are  not  designated. 

PoLYCARP,  the  disciple  of  the  apostle  John  and 
bishop  of  Smyrna,  who  suffered  martyrdom  in  extreme 
old  age,  about  the  middle  of  the  second  century,  after 
sentence  of  death  was  pronounced  upon  him,  wrote  an 
epistle  to  the  Philippians,  in  which  he  makes  express 
mention  of  Paul's  first  epistle  to  the  Corinthians — • 
"Do  ye  not  know  that  the  saints  shall  judge  the 
world,  as  Paul  teaches?"   See  1  Cor.  yI.  2. 

ITe  also  quotes  a  passage  from  the  epistle  to  the 
Epliesians,  under  the  name  of  Holy  Scripture.  "  For 
I  trust,"  says  he,  "  that  ye  are  well  exercised  in  the 
Holy  Scripture — as  in  these  Scriptures  it  is  said,  'Be 
ye  angry  and  sin  not:  let  not  the  sun  go  down  upon 
your  wrath.'  "  Ephes.  iv.  26.  Polycarp  also  cites 
passages  from  the  second  epistle  to  the  Corinthians ; 
from  the  epistle  to  the  Galatians  ;  from  the  first  and 
second  to  the  Thessalonians  ;  from  the  epistle  to  the 
Hebrews  ;  and  from  both  the  epistles  to  Timothy  ;  but, 
as  is  usual  with  tlie  apostolical  Fathers,  he  does  not 


QUOTATIONS   FROM    PAUL'S   EPISTLES.  207 

refer  to  the  books  or  authors  from  which  he  makes  his 
citations. 

Justin  Martyr  quotes  many  passages  in  the  very 
words  of  Paul,  without  mentioning  his  name.  But 
Irex^us  distinctly  and  frequently  quotes  thirteen  of 
Paul's  epistles.  He  takes  nothing,  indeed,  from  the 
short  epistle  to  Philemon,  which  can  easily  be  ac- 
counted for  by  the  brevity  of  this  letter,  and  the 
special  object  which  the  apostle  had  in  view  in  pen- 
ning it. 

It  would  fill  a  large  space  to  put  down  all  the 
passages  cited  by  Irenoeus  from  the  epistles  of  Paul. 
Let  it  suffice  to  give  one  from  each  as  quoted  in  his 
work  ''Against  Heresies." — "This  same  thing  Paul 
has  explained  writing  to  the  Romans,  '  Paul  an  apostle 
of  Jesus  Christ,  separated  to  the  gospel  of  God.'  Rom. 
i.  1.  And  again  writing  to  the  Romans  concerning 
Israel,  he  says,  'Whose  are  the  fathers  and  of  whom 
concerning  the  flesh,  Christ  came  who  is  God  over  all, 
blessed  for  evermore.' "  Rom.  ix.  5.  "  This  also  Paul 
manifestly  shows  in  his  epistle  to  the  Corinthians, 
saying,  '  Moreover,  brethren,  I  would  not  that  ye 
should  be  ignorant,  how  that  all  our  fathers  were  under 
the  cloud.'  1  Cor.  x.  1.  Paul  in  his  second  epistle  to 
the  Corinthians,  says,  '  In  whom  the  God  of  this  world 
hath  blinded  the  eyes  of  them  that  believe  not.'  "  2 
Cor.  iv.  4.  "  The  apostle  Paul  says,  in  his  epistle  to 
the  Galatians,  'Wherefore  then  serveth  the  law  of 
w^orks  ?  It  was  added  until  the  seed  should  come  to 
whom  the  promise  was  made.'"  Gal.  iii.  10.  "As 
also  the  blessed  Paul  says,  in  his  epistle  to  the  Ephe- 
sians,  '  For  we  are  members  of  his  body,  of  his  flesh, 
and  of  his  bones.'  "  Eph.  v.  30.     "As  also  Paul  says 


208  QUOTATIONS    FROM    PAUL'S   EPISTLES. 

to  the  riiilippians,  ^I  am  full,  having  received  of 
Epai)liroditus,  the  things  which  were  sent  from  you, 
an  odour  of  a  sweet  smell,  a  sacrifice  acceptable,  well 
pleasing  to  God.'"  Phil.  iv.  13.  "Again  Paul  says, 
in  his  epistle  to  the  Colossians,  '  Luke  the  beloved 
physician  saluteth  you.'  "  Col.  iv.  14.  "  The  apostle 
in  the  first  epistle  to  the  Thessalonians,  says,  ^And 
the  God  of  peace  sanctify  you  Avholly.'  "  1  Thess.  v.  23. 
*'And  again,  in  the  second  epistle  to  the  Thessalo- 
nians, speaking  of  Antichrist,  he  says,  'And  then 
shall  that  wicked  one  be  revealed.' "  2  Thess.  ii.  8. 
In  the  beginning  of  his  work  against  heresies,  he  says, 
*'  Whereas  some  having  rejected  the  truth,  bringing  in 
lying  words,  and  '  vain  genealogies,  rather  than  godly 
edifying,  which  is  in  faith,'  1  Tim.  i.  4,  as  saith  the 
apostle."  This  epistle  is  often  quoted  by  Irenagus,  in 
the  work  above  mentioned.  Speaking  of  Linus  bishop 
of  Rome,  he  says,  "  Of  this  Linus,  Paul  makes  men- 
tion in  his  epistle  to  Timothy,  '  Eubulus  greeteth  thee, 
and  Pudens,  and  Linus.'  "  2  Tim.  iv.  21.  "  As  Paul 
says,  '  A  man  that  is  an  heretic  after  the  first  and 
second  admonition,  reject.'  "  Tit.  iii.  10.  Thus,  we 
have  seen  that  InENiEUS  Avho  lived  in  the  age  imme- 
diately succeeding  that  in  which  Paul  lived  and  wrote, 
has  borne  explicit  testimony  to  all  the  epistles  of  that 
apostle  which  have  his  name  prefixed,  except  the  short 
epistle  to  Philemon,  from  which  it  is  probable  he  had 
no  occasion  to  take  any  authorities,  as  it  is  very  con- 
cise, and  addressed  to  a  friend  on  a  particular  subject 
in  wliich  Paul  felt  deeply  interested. 

As  to  the  epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  which  is  anony- 
mous, there  is  ample  evidence  that  IiiENiEUS  was 
ac^iuainted  with    it;    but   it  is    doubtful  whether   ho 


QUOTATIONS   FROM    PAUL'S   EPISTLES.  209 

esteemed  it  to  be  the  production  of  Paul,  or  some 
other  person.  As  he  resided  in  France,  it  is  very 
possible  that  he  participated  in  the  prejudice  of  the 
western  church  on  this  point.  Eusebius  informs  us, 
that  he  had  seen  a  work  of  Iren^us  which  has  not 
reached  our  times,  in  which  he  cites  passages  from  the 
epistle  to  the  Hebrews;  but  he  does  not  say  that  he 
quoted  them  as  Paul's.  And  in  his  works,  which  are 
still  extant,  there  are  several  passages  cited  from  this 
epistle,  but  without  direct  reference  to  the  source 
whence  they  were  derived. 

Athenagoras  quotes  from  several  of  Paul's  epis- 
tles ;  but,  as  has  been  seen  to  be  the  custom  of  the 
early  Fathers,  he  commonly  uses  the  words,  without 
informing  the  reader,  from  what  author  they  were 
borrowed.  There  is,  however,  a  passage  in  which 
he  refers  to  both  the  first  and  second  epistles  to  the 
Corinthians,  as  being  the  production  of  the  apostle 
Paul.  "It  is  manifest,  therefore,"  says  he,  "that 
according  to  the  apostle,  '  this  corruptible  and  dissi- 
pated must  put  on  incorruption,  that  the  dead  being 
raised  up,  and  the  separated  and  even  consumed  parts 
being  again  united,  every  one  may  receive  justly,  the 
things  he  hath  done  in  the  body,  whether  they  be 
good  or  bad.'  "  1  Cor.  xv.  54 ;  2  Cor.  v.  10. 

Clement,  of  Alexandria,  abounds  in  quotations 
from  Paul's  epistles ;  a  few  of  which  will  be  sufficient 
for  our  purpose.  "  The  apostle,  in  the  epistle  to  the 
Romans,  says,  '  Behold,  therefore,  the  goodness  and 
severity  of  God.' "  "  The  blessed  Paul,  in  the  first 
epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  says,  '  Brethren,  be  not 
children  in  understanding;  howbeit,  in  malice,  be  ye 
children,  but  in  understanding  be  ye  men.'  "  1  Cor. 
18* 


210  QUOTATIONS   FROM    PAUL'S   EPISTLES. 

xiv.  20.  He  has  also  many  quotations  from  the 
second  to  the  Corinthians — "The  apostle,"  says  he, 
"  calls  the  common  doctrine  of  the  faith,  *  a  savour 
of  knowledge,'  in  the  second  to  the  Corinthians." 
2  Cor.  ii.  14.  "  Hence,  also,  Paul  says,  '  Having 
these  promises,  dearly  beloved,  let  us  cleanse  our 
hearts  from  all  filthiness  of  the  flesh  and  spirit,  per- 
fecting holiness,  in  the  fear  of  God.'  "  2  Cor.  vii.  1. 
"Whereupon  Paul,  also  writing  to  the  Galatians, 
says,  '  My  little  children,  of  whom  I  travail  in  birth 
again  until  Christ  be  formed  in  you.'  "  Gal.  iv.  19. 
"Whereupon  the  blessed  apostle  says,  'I  testify  in 
the  Lord  that  ye  walk  not  as  other  Gentiles  walk.' 
Eph.  iv.  17,  18.  Again,  '  submitting  yourselves  one 
to  another  in  the  fear  of  God.'  "  Eph.  v.  21.  He 
quotes  part  of  the  first  and  second  chapters  of  the 
epistle  to  the  Philippians  expressly;  and  in  another 
place  he  quotes  the  same  epistle,  after  this  manner : 
"  The  apostle  of  the  Lord  also  exhorting  the  Mace- 
donians, says,  '  the  Lord  is  at  hand,  take  heed  that  we 
be  not  found  empty.'  "  Philip,  iv.  5. 

Clement  also  quotes  the  epistle  to  the  Colossians, 
and  the  epistles  to  the  Thessalonians.  From  the  first 
epistle  to  Timothy  he  cites  this  passage,  "  0  Timothy, 
keep  that  which  is  committed  to  thy  trust,  avoiding 
profane  and  vain  babblings,  and  oppositions  of  science, 
falsely  so  called,  which  some  professing,  have  erred 
concerning  the  faith."  1  Tim.  vi.  20,  21.  On  which 
he  observes,  "Heretics  confuted  by  this  saying,  reject 
both  epistles  to  Timothy."  The  epistle  to  Titus  is 
also  quoted  several  times ;  and  he  remarks,  in  one 
])lace,  "  that  Paul  had  cited  Epimenides,  the  Cretan, 
in  his   ei)istlc  to  Titus,  after  this  manner,  '  One  of 


QUOTATIONS  FROM   PAUL  S   EPISTLES.  211 

themselves,  a  poet  of  tlieir  own,  said,  the  Cretans  are 
always  liars.'  "  Tit.  i.  12,  13.  The  epistle  to  the 
Hebrews  is  also  distinctly  quoted,  and  is  ascribed  to 
Paul  as  its  author.  "  Wherefore,  writing  to  the  He- 
brews, who  were  declining  from  the  faith  to  the  law, 
Paul  says,  *  Have  ye  need  that  any  teach  you  again, 
wdiich  be  the  first  principles  of  the  oracles  of  God,  and 
are  become  such,  as  have  need  of  milk,  and  not  of 
strong  meat.'  "  Heb.  v.  12. 

Tertullian  frequently,  and  expressly  quotes  most 
of  Paul's  epistles.  In  one  place  he  says,  "  I  will, 
therefore,  by  no  means  say,  God,  nor  Lord,  but  I  will 
follow  the  apostles  ;  so  that  if  the  Father  and  the  Son 
are  mentioned  together,  I  will  say,  God  the  Father, 
and  Jesus  Christ  the  Lord.  But  when  I  mention 
Christ  only,  I  will  call  him  God,  as  the  apostle 
does,  '  Of  whom  Christ  came,  who  is  over  all,  God 
blessed  for  ever.'"  Rom.  ix.  5.  "Paul,  in  his  first 
epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  speaks  of  those  who 
doubted,  or  denied  the  resurrection."  In  his  Treatise 
on  Monogamy,  he  computes  that  it  was  about  one 
hundred  and  sixty  years  from  Paul's  writing  this 
epistle,  to  the  time  when  he  wrote.  "  In  the  second 
epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  they  suppose  the  apostle 
Paul  to  have  forgiven  the  same  fornicator,  who  in  the 
first,  he  declared,  ought  to  be  delivered  to  Satan  for 
the  destruction  of  the  flesh."  "But  of  this,  no  more 
need  be  said,  if  it  be  the  same  Paul,  who,  writing  to 
the  Galatians,  reckons  heresy  among  the  works  of  the 
flesh;  and  who  directs  Titus  to  reject  a  man  that  is  a 
heretic,  after  the  first  admonition,  '  knowing  that  he 
that  is  such  is  subverted  and  sinneth,  being  condemned 
of    himself.'"       "I    pass,"    says    he,    "to    another 


212  QUOTATIONS   FROM    PAUL'S    EPISTLES. 

epistle,  TN'liich  we  have  inscribed  to  the  Ephesians ; 
but  the  heretics,  to  the  Laodiceans."  Again,  "Ac- 
cording to  the  true  testimony  of  the  church,  we  sup- 
pose this  epistle  to  have  been  sent  to  the  Ephesians, 
and  not  to  the  Laodiceans ;  but  Marcion  has  endea- 
voured to  alter  this  inscription,  upon  pretence  of  bav- 
in 2:  made  a  more  dilio;ent  search  into  this  matter. 
But  the  inscriptions  are  of  no  importance,  for  the 
apostle  wrote  to  all,  when  he  wrote  to  some." 

Speaking  of  the  Christian's  hope,  he  says,  "  Of 
which  hope  and  expectation,  Paul  to  the  Galatians 
says,  Tor  we  through  the  Spirit  wait  for  the  hope  of 
righteousness  by  faith.'  He  does  not  say  we  have 
obtained  it,  but  he  speaks  of  the  hope  of  the  righteous- 
ness of  God  in  the  day  of  judgment,  when  our  reward 
shall  be  decided.  Of  which  being  in  suspense,  when 
lie  wrote  to  the  Philippians,  he  said,  '  If  by  any  means, 
I  might  attain  unto  the  resurrection  of  the  dead ;  not 
as  though  I  had  already  attained,  or  were  already 
perfect.'  Phil.  iii.  11,  12.  The  apostle,  writing  to 
the  Colossians,  expressly  cautions  against  philosophy, 
'Beware  lest  any  man  spoil  you  through  philosophy 
and  vain  deceit,  after  the  tradition  of  men,  and  not 
after  the  instruction  of  the  Spirit.'  "  Col.  ii.  8. 
"And  in  the  epistle  to  the  Thcssalonians,  the  apostle 
adds,  '  But  of  the  times  and  the  seasons,  brethren, 
ye  have  no  need  that  I  write  unto  you.  For  your- 
selves know  perfectly,  that  the  day  of  the  Lord  so 
Cometh  as  a  thief  in  the  night.'  "  1  Thess.  v.  1 — 3. 
*'  And  in  his  second  epistle  to  the  same  persons,  he 
writes  with  greater  solicitude  :  '  But  I  beseech  you, 
brethren,  by  the  coming  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
that  ye  be  not  soon  shaken  in  mind,  nor  be  troubled.' 


PAUL'S   AUTOGRAPHY.  213 

2  Thess.  ii.  1,  2.  "And  tliis  word,  Paul  has  used  in 
writing  to  Timothy,  '  0  Timothy,  keep  that  which  is 
committed  to  thy  trust.'  "  1  Tim.  vi.  20. 

That  remarkable  passage  of  Tertullian,  in  which 
he  is  supposed  to  refer  to  the  existing  autographs  of 
the  epistles  of  Paul,  although  referred  to  already,  may 
with  propriety  be  here  introduced.  "Well,"  says  he, 
"  if  you  be  willing  to  exercise  your  curiosity  profit- 
ably, in  the  business  of  your  salvation,  visit  the  apos- 
tolical churches,  in  which  the  very  chairs  of  the  apos- 
tles still  preside,  in  which  their  very  authentic  letters 
(ciutheiiticse  literse)  are  recited,  sending  forth  the 
voice,  and  representing  the  countenance  of  each  one  of 
them.  Is  Achaia  near  you  ?  You  have  Corinth.  If 
you  are  not  far  from  Macedonia,  you  have  Philippi 
• — you  have  Thessalonica.  If  you  can  go  to  Asia, 
you  have  Ephesus.  But  if  you  are  near  to  Italy,  you 
have  Rome,  from  whence  also  we  may  be  easily  satis- 
fied." 

There  are  three  opinions  respecting  the  meaning  of 
this  phrase  autheyiticse  liter se ;  authentic  letters; 
The  first  is,  that  it  signifies  the  original  manuscripts  of 
the  apostles — the  autographs  which  were  sent  severally 
to  the  churches  named,  to  all  of  which  Paul  addressed 
epistles.  The  second  opinion  is,  that  Tertullian  meant 
to  refer  his  readers  to  the  original  Greek  of  these  epis- 
tles, which  they  had  been  accustomed  to  read  in  a 
Latin  version.  And  the  third  is,  that  this  phrase 
means  tvell  authenticated  letters ;  epistles  which,  by 
application  to  these  churches,  could  be  proved  to  be 
genuine  writings  of  the  apostles. 

Now,  that  the  first  of  these  is  the  true  sense  of  Ter- 


214  PAUL'S    AUTOGRAPHY. 

tullian's  words,  Avill,  I  tliink,  appear  very  probable,  if 
we  consider,  that  if  those  autographs  were  preserved, 
even  with  common  care,  they  woiikl  have  been  extant 
in  the  time  of  TertuUian,  who  reckons  only  160  years 
from  the  time  of  Paul's  writing  to  his  own  time.  And 
again,  unless  he  meant  this,  there  is  no  reason  why  he 
sliould  direct  his  readers  only  to  those  cities  wdiich  had 
received  epistles ;  for  doubtless  many  other  churches, 
which  might  be  more  accessible,  had  authentic  copies 
in  the  Greek  language.  Such  copies  undoubtedly  ex- 
isted in  Africa,  where  TertuUian  lived.  They  need 
not,  however,  have  been  directed  to  go  to  Rome,  or 
Corinth,  or  Ephesus,  or  Philippi,  or  Thessalonica,  to 
see  the  epistles  of  Paul  in  Greek.  Neither  was  it  ne- 
cessary to  take  a  journey  to  these  cities  to  be  fully 
convinced,  that  the  letters  which  had  been  received  by 
them  Avere  genuine  ;  for  the  evidence  of  this  fact  was 
not  confined  to  these  distinguished  places,  but  was  dif- 
fused all  over  the  Christian  world. 

From  these  considerations  I  conclude,  that  in  Ter- 
tullian's  time  these  churches  had  in  possession,  and 
preserved  with  care,  the  identical  epistles  sent  to  them 
by  J*aul.  This  sense  is  confirmed  by  what  he  says, 
of  their  being  able  to  hear  the  voice,  and  behold  the 
countenance  of  the  apostles,  and  see  the  very  seats  on 
which  tliey  had  been  accustomed  to  sit  when  they 
presided  in  tlie  cliurch.  These  seats  were  still  occu- 
pied by  tlie  bisliops,  and  seemed  to  preside,  as  they 
were  venerable  from  having  been  once  occupied  by  the 
apostles. 

TertuUian  was  acquainted  with  the  epistle  to  the 
Hebrews,  fur  he  quotes  several  passages  from  the  sixth 


TESTIMONY   OF    THEOPHILUS.  215 

chapter,  but  he  ascribes  it  to  Barnabas,  and  not  to 
Paul.     In  this  opinion,  I  believe,  he  is  singular. 

Theopiitlus  of  Antioch  quotes  the  following  pas- 
sage from  the  epistle  to  the  Romans,  but  seems  to  have 
quoted  from  memory,  "  He  will  search  out  all  things, 
and  will  judge  justly ;  rendering  to  all  according  to 
the  desert  of  their  actions.  To  them  that  by  patient 
continuance  in  w^ell-doing  seek  for  immortality,  he 
will  give  eternal  life,  joy,  peace,  rest,  and  many  good 
things,  which  neither  eye  hath  seen,  nor  ear  heard, 
nor  have  entered  into  the  heart  of  man.  But  to  the 
unbelieving,  and  the  despisers,  and  them  that  obey  not 
the  truth,  but  obey  unrighteousness,  shall  be  wrath 
and  indignation,  tribulation  and  anguish ;  and  in  a 
word,  eternal  fire  shall  be  the  portion  of  such."  This 
passage  is  evidently  taken  from  Rom.  ii.  6 — 9,  and 
as  evidently  cited  from  memory.  It  also  contains  a 
quotation  from  1  Cor.  ii.  9. 

This  early  and  learned  Father  has  also  cited,  in 
the  same  loose  manner,  passages  from  the  epistles  to 
the  Ephesians — to  the  Philippians — to  the  Colossians 
— to  Timothy — to  Titus — and  from  the  epistle  to  the 
Hebrews,  but  without  naming  the  book  from  w^hich  the 
passages  are  taken ;  which  is  in  accordance  with  the 
practice  of  all  the  apostolic  Fathers. 

The  following  passage  is  w^orthy  of  notice,  not  only 
because  it  contains  an  undoubted  reference  to  the 
second  epistle  of  Peter ;  but  because  it  shows  what 
opinion  was  in  that  early  age  entertained  of  the  inspi- 
ration of  the  sacred  Scriptures  :  "  But  men  of  God, 
filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  becoming  prophets, 
inspired  by  God  himself,  and  being  enlightened  were 
taught  of  God,  and  were  holy  and  righteous,  wherefore 


216  TESTIMONY   OF   CLEMENT. 

they  obtained  the  honour  to  become  the  organs  of 
God."* 

Clement  of  Alexandria  lived  and  wrote  toward 
the  close  of  the  second  century.  After  PantiBnus  he 
was  president  of  the  Alctandrian  school.  Several  of 
his  works  have  come  down  to  us,  from  which  the  fol- 
lowing citations  from  Paul's  epistles  are  taken.  "Be- 
hold, therefore,"  saith  Paul,  "  the  goodness  and  seve- 
rity of  God."  Ptora.  xvi.  19.  "The  blessed  Paul,  in 
the  first  epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  says,  '  Brethren,  be 
not  children  in  understanding,  but  in  malice  be  ye 
children,  but  in  understanding  be  ye  men.'  And  he 
says,  the  apostle  in  the  second  epistle  to  the  Corin- 
thians, calls  the  gospel  "  a  savour  of  knowledge,"  2 
Cor.  xi.  14.  "  Again,  Paul  says,  '  Having  these  pro- 
mises, dearly  beloved,  let  us  cleanse  ourselves  from  all 
jilthiness  of  the  flesh  and  spirit,  perfecting  holiness  in 
tlie  fear  of  God.'  2  Cor.  vii.  1.  He  cites  the  follow- 
ing from  the  epistle  to  the  Ephesians :  "  As  blessed  Paul 
saith,  '  Walk  not  as  other  Gentiles  walk.'  Ephes.  vi. 
IT,  and  '  submitting  yourselves  one  to  another  in  the 
fear  of  God."  Eph.  v.  21.  He  also  cites  the  following 
words  from  the  epistle  to  the  Galatians,  "  My  little 
cliildrcn,  of  whom  I  travail  in  birth  until  Christ  be 
fjrnicd  in  you."  Gal.  iv.  19.  And  from  the  Philip- 
pians,  these  words,  "  Not  as  though  I  had  already  at- 
tained or  were  already  perfect,"  Phil.  iii.  12.  He  also 
cites  texts  frequently  from  the  epistles  to  the  Colos- 
Bians  and  Thessalonians,  and  always  quotes  them  as 
written  })y  Paul.  From  the  first  epistle  to  Timothy, 
vi.  20,  he  has  the  following,  "  0  Timothy,  keep  that 

*  Tlicoph.  ad  Autolycum  lib.  ii.    For  oilier  citations  see  Lard- 
Dcr,  Vol.  1. 


origen's  testimony.  217 

wMch  is  committed  to  thy  trust,  avoiding  profane  bab- 
blings, and  oppositions  of  science,  falsely  so  called." 
He  also  refers  to  the  second  epistle  to  Timothy,  and 
the  epistle  to  Titus  he  quotes  several  times.  It  is  sa- 
tisfactory to  have  the  testimony  of  so  early  and  so 
learned  a  Father  in  favour  of  the  canonical  authority 
of  the  epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  and  of  its  having  Paul 
as  its  author.  "  Blessed  Paul,  writing  to  such  as  were 
declining,  says,  '  Ye  have  need  that  one  teach  you  again 
which  be  the  first  principles  of  the  oracles  of  God,  and  are 
become  such  as  have  need  of  milk  and  not  strong  meat.'  " 
Hcb.  V.  12. 

Origen  quotes  Paul's  epistles,  as  expressly  and 
frequently  as  is  done  by  almost  any  modern  writer. 
To  transcribe  all  the  passages  cited  by  him,  would  be 
to  put  down  a  large  portion  of  the  w^ritings  of  this 
apostle.     A  few  instances  will  be  sufficient. 

In  one  passage,  in  his  work  against  Celsus,  he  men- 
tions several  of  Paul's  epistles  together,  in  the  follow- 
ing manner — "  Do  you,  first  of  all,  explain  the  epistles 
of  him  who  says  these  things,  and  having  diligently 
read,  and  attended  to  the  sense  of  the  words  there 
used,  particularly  in  that  to  the  Ephesians,  to  the 
Thessalonians,  to  the  Philippians,  to  the  Romans, 
&c."  The  epistle  to  the  Ephesians  is  elsewdiere 
quoted  by  Origen  with  the  inscription  which  it  now 
bears. 

After  employing  an  argument  founded  on  a  passage 
quoted  from  the  epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  he  observes  : 
*'  But  possibly  some  one,  pressed  with  this  argument, 
will  take  refuge  in  the  opinion  of  those  who  reject  this 
epistle  as  not  written  by  Paul.  In  answer  to  such 
we  intend  to  write  a  distinct  discourse,  to  prove  this  to 
19 


218  CTrRTAX's    TESTIMOXT. 

be  an  epistle  of  Paul."  In  his  citations  of  this  epistle, 
therefore,  he  constantly  ascribes  it  to  Paul  in  such  ex- 
pressions as  these,  "Paul,  in  his  epistle  to  the  He- 
brews," "In  the  epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  the  same 
Paul  savs." 

But  Origen  not  only  expresses  his  own  opinion  on 
this  subject,  but  asserts,  that  bj  the  tradition  received 
by  the  ancients  it  was  ascribed  to  Paul.  His  words 
are,  "  For  it  is  not  without  reason  that  the  ancients 
have  handed  it  down  to  us  as  Paul's."  Kow,  when 
we  take  into  view  that  Origen  lived  within  one  hun- 
dred years  of  the  time  of  the  apostles,  and  that  he  was 
a  person  of  most  extraordinary  learning,  and  that  he 
had  travelled  much  through  different  countries,  his 
testimony  on  this  point  is  of  great  weight ;  especially, 
since  his  opinion  is  founded  on  the  testimony  of  the 
ancients,  by  whom  he  must  mean  the  contemporaries 
of  the  apostles.  At  the  same  time,  however,  he  men- 
tions, that  some  ascribed  it  to  Luke,  and  others  to  Cle- 
ment of  Rome. 

Cypriax  often  quotes  the  epistles  of  Paul.  "  Ac- 
cording," says  he,  "to  what  the  blessed  apostle  wrote 
in  his  epistle  to  the  Romans,  '  Every  one  shall  give 
account  of  himself  to  God,  therefore,  let  us  not  judge 
one  another.'  "  Rom.  xiv.  12.  In  his  first  book  of 
Testimonies,  he  says,  "  In  tlic  first  epistle  of  Paul  to 
the  Corinthians,  it  is  said,  'Moreover,  brethren,  I 
would  not  ye  should  be  ignorant,  how  that  all  our  fa- 
thers were  baptized  unto  Moses,  in  the  cloud,  and  in 
the  sea.'  1  Cor.  x.  1.  Likewise,  in  the  second  epistle 
to  the  Corinthians,  it  is  written,  '  Their  minds  were 
blinded  unto  this  day.'  2  Cor.  iii.  15.  In  like  man- 
ner, blessed  Paul,  by  the  inspiration  of  the  Lord,  says, 


ctprian's  testimony.  219 

*  Now  he  that  ministereth  seed  to  the  sower,  mmlster 
bread  for  your  food,  and  multiply  your  seed  sown,  and 
increase  the  fruits  of  your  righteousness,  that  ye  may 
be  enriched  in  all  things.'  2  Cor.  ix.  10.  Likewise 
Paul  to  the  Galatians  says,  •  '  "When  the  fulness  of 
time  Avas  come,  God  sent  forth  his  Son,  made  of  a  wo- 
man.' "  Gal.  iv.  4. 

Cyprian  expressly  quotes  the  epistle  to  the  Ephe- 
sians  under  that  title.  "But  the  apostle  Paul,  speak- 
ing of  the  same  thing  more  clearly  and  plainly,  writes 
to  the  Ephesians,  and  says,  '  Christ  loved  the  church, 
and  gave  himself  for  it,  that  he  might  sanctify  and 
cleanse  it,  with  the  washing  of  water.'  Ephes.  v.  25,  26. 
So  also,  Paul  to  the  Philippians  says,  'Who  being  ap- 
pointed in  the  form  of  God,  did  not  earnestly  afiect  to 
be  equal  with  God,  but  made  himself  of  no  reputation, 
taking  on  him  the  form  of  a  servant ;  and  being  made 
in  the  likeness  of  man,  and  found  in  fashion  as  a  man, 
lie  humbled  himself,  becoming  obedient  unto  death, 
even  the  death  of  the  cross.'  Philip,  ii.  6 — 8.  In  the 
epistle  of  Paul  to  the  Colossians,  it  is  written,  '  Con- 
tinue in  prayer,  watching  in  the  same.'  Col.  iv.  2. 
Likewise,  the  blessed  apostle  Paul,  full  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  sent  to  call  and  convert  the  Gentiles,  warns  and 
teaches,  '  Beware  lest  any  man  spoil  you  through  philo- 
sophy, &c.'  "  Col.  ii.  8.  He  also  quotes  both  the  epistles 
to  the  Thessalonians.  In  his  book  of  Testimonies  he 
says,  "If  the  apostle  Paul  writing  to  Timothy,  said, 
'Let  no  man  despise  thy  youth,'  1  Tim.  iv.  12,  much 
more  may  it  be  said  of  you  and  your  colleagues,  '  Let 
no  man  despise  thy  age.' "  "Therefore  the  apostle 
writes  to -Timothy  and  exhorts,  'that  a  bishop  should 
not  strive,  but  be  gentle,  and  apt  to  teach.'  "  2  Tim. 


220  Cyprian's  testimoxy. 

ii.  24.  These  two  epistles  are  elsewhere  quoted  dis- 
tinctly, as  the  first  and  second  to  Timothy.  He  also 
quotes  from  the  epistle  to  Titus,  the  passage,  *' A  man 
that  is  an  heretic  after  the  first  and  second  admoni- 
tion reject."  Tit.  iii.  10. 

Cyprian  no  where  quotes  the  epistle  to  the  He- 
brev\-s.  It  is  probable,  therefore,  that  he,  like  some 
others  of  the  Latin  Fathers,  did  not  believe  it  to  be 
Paul's,  or  was  doubtful  respecting  it.  Neither  does 
he  cite  the  epistle  to  Philemon ;  of  this  no  other  rea- 
son need  be  sought,  but  its  contents  and  brevity. 
How  many  Christian  authors  have  written  volumes, 
"svithout  any  citation  of  that  epistle  !  Yictorinus, 
who  lived  near  the  close  of  the  third  century,  often 
quotes  Paul's  Epistles ;  and  among  the  rest,  he  cites 
the  epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  which  he  seems  to  have 
believed  to  be  the  production  of  Paul.  Dionysius  of 
Alexandria,  also  a  contemporary  of  Origen,  and  a 
man  of  great  learning,  in  the  few  fragments  of  his 
works  which  remain,  often  refers  to  Paul's  Epistles. 
NovATUS,  presbyter  of  the  church  of  Kome,  who 
flourished  about  the  middle  of  the  third  century,  ex- 
pressly cites  from  the  epistle  to  the  Romans,  that 
famous  testimony  to  Christ's  divinity,  so  often  quoted 
by  the  Fathers,  "Whose  are  the  fathers,  of  whom  is 
Christ  according  to  the  flesh,  who  is  over  all,  God 
blessed  for  ever."  And  it  deserves  to  be  recollected, 
that  although  so  many,  beginning  with  Iremeus,  have 
cited  this  passage,  yet  none  of  them  appear  to  have 
thought  the  words  capable  of  any  other  meaning,  than 
the  plain  obvious  sense,  which  strikes  the  reader  at 
first.  Tliat  it  was  a  mere  exclamation  of  praise,  seems 
never  to  have  entered    their  minds.     Novatus  also 


TESTIMONIES   TO    PAUL'S   EPISTLES.  221 

quotes  the  first  and  second  epistles  to  the  Corinthians, 
the  epistles  to  the  Galatians,  to  the  Ephesians,  and  to 
the  Philippians.  From  this  last  epistle  he  cites  these 
remarkable  words:  "Who  being  in  the  form  of  God," 
Phil.  ii.  6,  and  interprets  the  following  clause  in  exact 
accordance  with  another  of  the  Fathers,  "  did  not  ear- 
nestly seek  to  be  like  God,  or  to  be  equal  with  God." 
He  quotes  from  the  epistle  to  the  Colossians  these 
words  :  "  Whether  they  be  thrones,  or  dominions,  or 
principalities,  or  powers,  things  visible  and  invisible, 
by  him  all  things  consist."  Col.  i.  16,  17.  The  epis- 
tles to  Timothy  and  to  Titus  are  also  cited  by  this 
author. 

Methodius,  who  lived  in  the  latter  part  of  the 
third  century,  quotes  Paul's  epistle  to  the  Romans, 
first  and  second  to  the  Corinthians,  to  the  Galatians, 
to  the  Ephesians,  to  the  Philippians,  to  the  Colossians, 
the  first  to  the  Thessalonians,  and  the  first  to  Timothy. 
He  has  also  taken  several  passages  from  the  epistle  to 
the  Hebrews,  and  quotes  it  in  such  a  manner,  as  to 
render  it  highly  probable  that  he  esteemed  it  to  be  a 
part  of  sacred  Scripture,  and  ascribed  it  to  Paul. 

EusEBius,  the  learned  historian,  undoubtedly  re- 
ceived thirteen  epistles  of  Paul  as  genuine ;  and  he 
seems  to  have  entertained  no  doubt  respecting  the 
canonical  authority  of  the  epistle  to  the  Hebrews ; 
but  he  sometimes  expresses  himself  doubtfully  of  its 
author,  while  at  other  times  he  quotes  it  as  Paul's, 
without  any  apparent  hesitation.  In  speaking  of  the 
universally  acknowledged  epistle  of  Clement  of  Rome, 
he  observes:  "In  which,  inserting  many  sentiments  of 
the  epistle  to  the  HebrcAVS,  and  also  using  some  of 
the  very  words  of  it,  he  plainly  manifests  that  epistle 
19* 


222  TESTIMONIES   TO    PAUL'S   EPISTLES. 

to  be  no  modern  writing.  And  hence  it  has,  not 
without  reason,  been  reckoned  among  the  other  writ- 
ings of  the  apostle ;  for  Paul  having  written  to  the 
Hebrews  in  their  own  language,  some  think  that  the 
Evangelist  Luke,  others,  that  this  very  Clement  trans- 
lated it ;  which  last  is  the  more  probable  of  the  two, 
there  being  a  resemblance  between  the  style  of  the 
epistle  of  Clement,  and  that  to  the  Hebrews ;  nor  are 
the  sentiments  of  these  two  writings  very  different." 
In  his  Ecclesiastical  History,  he  speaks,  "  of  the 
epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  and  divers  other  epistles  of 
Paul."  And  Theodoret  positively  asserts,  that  Euse- 
bius  received  this  epistle  as  Paul's,  and  that  he  mani- 
fested that  all  the  ancients,  almost,  were  of  the  same 
opinion.  It  seems,  from  these  facts,  that  in  the  time 
of  Eusebius,  the  churches  with  which  he  was  ac- 
quainted, did  generally  receive  the  epistle  to  the  He- 
brews as  the  writing  of  Paul. 

Ambrose,  bishop  of  Milan,  received  fourteen  epistles 
of  Paul.  Jerome  received  as  undoubted  all  Paul's 
epistles,  except  that  to  the  Hebrews,  concerning  which 
he  says  in  his  letter  to  Evangclius,  ''That  all  the 
Greeks  and  some  of  the  Latins  received  this  epistle." 
And  in  his  letter  to  Dardanus,  "That  it  was  not  only 
received  as  Paul's  by  all  the  churches  of  the  east,  in 
his  time,  but  by  all  the  ecclesiastical  writers  in  former 
times,  though  many  ascribe  it  to  Barnabas,  or  Cle- 
ment." He  also  says,  "that  it  was  daily  read  in  the 
cliurches ;  and  if  the  Latins  did  not  receive  this  epis- 
tle, as  the  Greeks  rejected  the  Revelation  of  John,  he 
received  both ;  not  being  so  much  influenced  by  pre- 
sent times,  as  by  the  judgment  of  ancient  Avriters,  who 
quote  both  j  and  that  not  as  they  quote  apocryphal 


TESTIMONIES   TO   PxiUL'S   EPISTLES.  223 

"books,  and  even  heathen  writings,  but  as  canonical 
and  ecclesiastical." 

Jerome,  in  speaking  of  the  writings  of  Paul,  gives 
the  following  very  full  and  satisfactory  testimony; 
*'  He  wrote,"  says  he,  "  nine  epistles  to  seven  churches. 
To  the  Romans,  one ;  to  the  Corinthians,  two  ;  to  the 
Galatians,  one ;  to  the  Philippians,  one ;  to  the  Colos- 
sians,  one ;  to  the  Thessalonians,  two ;  to  the  Ephe- 
sians,  one ;  to  Timothy,  two ;  to  Titus,  one ;  to  Phile- 
mon, one.  But  the  epistle  called  to  the  Hehreivs  is 
not  thought  to  be  his,  because  of  the  difference  of 
argument  and  style ;  but  rather  Barnabas' s,  as  Ter- 
tullian  thought ;  or  Luke's,  according  to  some  others  ; 
or  Clement's,  who  was  afterwards  bishop  of  Borne ; 
"vvho  being  much  with  Paul,  clothed  and  adorned  Paul's 
sense  in  his  own  language.  Or  if  it  be  Paul's,  he 
might  decline  putting  his  name  to  it  in  the  inscription, 
for  fear  of  offending  the  Jews.  Moreover,  he  wrote  as 
a  Hebrew  to  the  Hebrews,  it  being  his  own  language ; 
whence  it  came  to  pass,  that  being  translated,  it  has 
more  elegance  in  the  Greek  than  his  other  epistles. 
This  they  say  is  the  reason  of  its  differing  from  Paul's 
other  writings.  There  is  also  an  epistle  to  the  Lao- 
diceans,  but  it  is  rejected  by  every  body."  Jerome 
commonly  quotes  the  epistle  to  the  Hebrews  as  the 
apostle  Paul's ;  and,  as  we  have  seen  before,  this  was 
his  prevailing  opinion,  which  is  not  contradicted  in  the 
long  passage  just  cited. 

Augustine  received  fourteen  epistles  of  Paul,  the 
last  of  which,  in  his  catalogue,  is  the  epistle  to  the 
Hebrews  ;  he  was  aware,  however,  that  some  in  hi3 
time  thought  it  of  doubtful  authority.  "However," 
says  he,  "  I  am  inclined  to  follow  the  opinion  of  the 


224  DATE  OF  Paul's  epistles. 

chui'ches  of  the  east,  who  receive  it  among  the  canoni- 
cal Scriptiu'es." 

The  time  when  each  of  these  epistles  was  written 
cannot  be  ascertained  with  any  exactness.  It  is  not 
even  agreed  among  the  learned  which  was  the  first  of 
Paul's  epistles.  Gencrallj,  indeed,  it  has  been  thought 
that  the  two  epistles  to  the  Thessalonians  were  com- 
posed earlier  than  the  others ;  but  of  late  some 
learned  men  have  given  precedence  to  the  epistle  to 
the  Galatians.  And  this  opinion  is  not  altogether 
confined  to  the  moderns,  for  Tertullian  mentions  this 
epistle  as  among  the  first  of  Paul's  writings.  But 
the  more  common  opinion  is,  that  it  was  w^ritten  dur- 
ing the  long  abode  of  this  apostle  at  Corinth.  Among 
the  advocates  of  this  opinion,  we  find  L'Enfant,  Bcau- 
sobre,  Lardner,  &c.,  while  Grotius,  Capel,  Witsius,  and 
"Wall,  suppose  that  it  was  Avrittcn  at  Ephesus.  These 
last,  together  with  Fabricius  and  Mill,  place  the  date 
of  the  epistle  to  the  Galatians,  after  that  to  the 
Romans.  Macknight  maintains  that  it  was  written 
from  Antioch,  after  the  Council  of  Jerusalem ;  and 
ofi'ers  in  support  of  his  opinions  several  plausible  argu- 
ments, which,  if  they  do  not  j^rove  all  that  he  wishes, 
seem  to  render  it  probable  that  the  time  of  this  epistle 
being  written  was  soon  after  the  Council  of  Jerusalem. 
Semler,  however,  is  of  opinion  that  this  epistle  was 
written  prior  to  the  Council  of  Jerusalem. 

From  these  various  opinions,  it  is  sufficiently  evident 
that  the  precise  date  of  the  epistle  to  the  Galatians 
cannot  be  ascertained.  If  we  take  the  opinion  of 
those  who  give  the  earliest  date,  the  time  of  writing 
will  not  be  later  than  A.  D.  47.  But  if  we  receive  as 
more  probable  the  opinions  of  those  who  think  that  it 


DATE  OF  PAUL'S  EPISTLES.         225 

•was  written  after  the  Council  of  Jerusalem,  we  shall 
hring  it  down  to  the  year  50 ;  while,  according  to  the 
opinion  more  commonly  adopted,  its  date  will  be 
A.  D.  52  or  53.  And  if  we  prefer  the  opinions  of 
those  who  assign  the  latest  date  to  this  epistle,  we 
shall  bring  it  down  several  years  later,  and  instead  of 
giving  it  the  first  place,  wdll  give  it  the  ninth  or  tenth. 

There  seem  to  be  better  data  for  determining  that 
the  fir«t  epistle  to  the  Thessalonians  was  written  from 
Corinth,  about  the  year  51 ;  and  the  second  epistle 
to  the  Thessalonians  was  probably  written  a  few 
months  afterwards  from  the  same  place.  Michaelis 
and  Dr.  Hales  unite  in  giving  the  next  place  in  the 
order  of  time  to  the  epistle  to  Titus.  Lardner,  how- 
ever, places  it  considerably  later ;  and  Paley  assigns 
to  it  a  date  later  than  any  other  author.  On  this 
subject  there  is  little  else  than  conjecture  to  guide 
us.  The  year  in  which  this  epistle  was  written, 
according  to  Michaelis  and  Hales,  was  53 ;  according 
to  Lardner,  56 ;  according  to  Barrington,  57 ;  and 
according  to  Whitby,  Pearson,  and  Paley,  Q^. 

The  epistle  next  in  order  is  the  first  to  the  Corin- 
thians, the  date  of  which  can  be  determined  with 
considerable  precision  from  the  epistle  itself.  "  /  will 
tarry  at  E^^hesus  until  Pentecost.''  1  Cor.  xvi.  8. 
These  words  teach  where  this  epistle  Avas  written,  and 
by  a  comparison  with  other  passages  of  Scripture, 
that  it  was  penned  near  the  close  of  Paul's  long  resi- 
dence at  Ephesus,  from  which  place  he  departed 
about  A.  D.  57.  This  then  is  the  proper  date  of  this 
epistle. 

The  first  epistle  to  Timothy  will  stand  next,  if  we 
follow   the   opinion   most   commonly   entertained    by 


226  DATE    OF    PAUL'S    EPISTLES. 

learned  men ;  and  its  date  ^\l\\  be  A.  D.  57  or 
A.  D.  58.  This  opinion  is  supported  by  the  authority 
of  Athanasius,  Theodoret,  Baronius,  Capellus,  Blondel, 
Hammond,  Grotius,  Sahnasius,  Lightfoot,  Benson, 
Barrington,  Michaelis,  Doddridge,  and  others.  But 
Pearson,  Rosenmuller,  Macknight,  Paley,  Tomline, 
&c.,  ph\ce  it  as  low  as  the  year  of  our  Lord  64  or  Q5. 

The  second  epistle  to  the  Corinthians  was  written 
probably  about  a  year  after  the  first,  which  will  bring 
it  to  A.  D.  58. 

In  the  same  year  it  is  thought  that  Paul  wrote  his 
very  important  epistle  to  the  llomans.  On  this  point, 
however,  there  is  some  diversity  of  opinion.  But 
the  epistle  itself  contains  internal  evidence  that  it  was 
■written  at  Corinth,  when  the  apostle  was  preparing 
to  take  the  contributions  of  the  churches  to  Jerusalem. 

The  date  of  the  epistles  to  the  Ejihesians,  to  the 
Philippians,  and  to  the  Colossians,  can  be  ascertained 
pretty  nearly,  from  the  circumstance,  that  Paul  was 
prisoner  at  Rome  when  they  were  written.  The 
epistle  to  the  Ephesians  may,  with  much  probability, 
be  referred  to  A.  D.  61;  the  epistle  to  the  Philip- 
pians to  A.  D.  62;  and  the  epistle  to  the  Colossians 
to  the  same  year. 

The  short  epistle  to  Philemon  was  written,  as 
appears  by  several  coincidences,  about  the  same  time 
as  those  just  mentioned. 

The  epistle  to  the  Hebrews  seems  to  have  been 
written  about  the  termination  of  Paul's  first  im- 
prisonment at  Rome.  Its  date,  therefore,  may  with- 
out dimger  of  mistake  be  referred  to  A.  1).  62  or 
A.  1).  ()::;. 

J.  1).  Michaelis  who,  as  has  been  seen,  has  done 


DATE   OF    PAUL'S   EPISTLES.  227 

mucli  to  unsettle  the  Canon  of  Scripture,  by  calling 
in  question  the  genuineness  of  some  of  the  books,  as 
well  as  the  inspiration  of  some  of  the  writers,  has,  in 
an  elaborate  essay,  (vol.  iv.)  endeavoured  to  lessen 
the  authority  of  this  epistle.  For  an  answer  to  the 
arguments  of  this  learned,  but  sceptical  Professor,  I 
would  refer  the  reader  to  Townsend's  New  Testa- 
ment, arranged  in  chronological  and  historical  order. 

Paul's  second  epistle  to  Timothy  seems  to  have 
been  written  during  his  second  imprisonment  at  Rome, 
and  shortly  before  his  death,  A.  D.  QQ. 


128  THE   SEVEN   CATHOLIC    EPISTLES. 


SECTION  XI. 


CANONICAL  AUTHORITY  OF  THE  SEVEN   CATHOLIC  EPISTLES. 

The  first  epistle  of  Peter,  and  the  first  of  John,  are 
quoted  hj  Ignatius,  Polycarp  and  Papias,  but  not 
expressly  as  the  writings  of  these  apostles.  For  the 
particular  passages  cited  the  reader  is  referred  to 
Lardner.  Justin  Martyr  has  a  saying  which  is  no- 
where found  in  Scripture,  except  in  the  second  of  Peter : 
it  is,  ''that  a  day  of  the  Lord  is  a  thousand  yearsJ'^ 
DiOGNETUS  quotes  several  passages  from  the  first  of 
Peter,  and  the  first  of  John.  Iren^us  quotes  the  first 
epistle  of  Peter  expressly ;  "  And  Peter  says,  in  his 
epistle,  IVJiom  having  not  seen  ye  love.''  And  from 
the  second  he  takes  the  same  passage  which  has  just 
been  cited,  as  quoted  by  Justin  Martyr.  The  first  and 
second  of  John  are  expressly  quoted  by  this  Father, 
for  after  citing  his  gospel  he  goes  on  to  say,  "Where- 
fore also  in  his  epistle,  he  says.  Little  children,  it  is 
the  last  time."  And  again,  "In  the  forcmentioned 
epistle  the  Lord  commands  us  to  shun  those  persona 
who  bring  false  doctrine,  saying,  "-Many  deceivers  are 
entered  into  the  world,  who  confess  not  that  Jesus 
Christ  is  come  in  the  flesh.  This  is  a  deceiver,  and 
an  Antichrist.  Look  to  yourselves  that  ye  lose  not 
those  things  which  ye  have  wrought."  Now  these 
words   are   undoubtedly   taken   from    John's   second 


THE    SEVEN   CATHOLIC    EPISTLES.  229 

epistle.  Irenseus  seems,  indeed,  to  quote  them  from 
the  first,  but  this  was  probably  a  slip  of  the  memory. 

Several  passages  out  of  the  epistle  of  James  are 
also  cited  by  this  father,  but  without  any  distinct 
reference  to  the  source  whence  they  are  derived. 
Athenagoras  also  has  some  quotations  which  appear 
to  be  from  James  and  2  Peter.  Clement  of  Alex- 
andria often  quotes  1  Peter,  and  sometimes  2  Peter. 
The  first  epistle  of  John  is  often  cited  by  him.  Jude 
also  is  quoted  several  times  expressly,  as,  ''  Of  these 
and  the  like  heretics,  I  think  Jude  spoke  prophetically, 
Avhen  he  said,  '  Iivill  that  ye  should  knoiv^  that  Cfod  hav- 
ing saved  the  people  out  of  Egypt,'  "  &c.  He  has  a 
remark  on  Jude's  modesty,  that  he  did  not  style  him- 
self the  brother  of  our  Lord,  although  he  was  related 
to  him,  but  begins  his  epistle,  ''Jude  the  servant 
of  Jesus  Christ,  and  brother  of  James." 

Tertullian  often  quotes  the  first  epistle  of  John ; 
but  he  has  in  none  of  his  remaining  writings  cited 
anything  from  James,  2  Peter  or  2  John.  He  has, 
however,  one  express  quotation  from  Jude,  ''Hence 
it  is,"  says  he,  "  that  Enoch  is  quoted  by  the  apostle 
Jude." 

Origen,  in  his  commentary  on  John's  gospel,  ex- 
pressly quotes  the  epistle  of  James  in  the  following 
passage,  "For  though  it  be  called  faith,  if  it  be  without 
works,  it  is  dead,  as  we  read  in  the  epistle  ascribed  to 
James."  This  is  the  only  passage  in  the  remaining 
Greek  works  of  this  father  where  this  book  is  quoted ; 
but  in  his  Latin  works,  translated  by  Rufin,  it  is  cited 
as  the  epistle  of  James  the  apostle  and  brother  of  our 
Lord;  and  as  "  divine  Scripture,"  The  first  epistle 
of  Peter  is  often  quoted  expressly.  In  his  book  against 
20 


230  THE    SEVEN    CATHOLIC    EPISTLES. 

Celsiis,  lie  says,  "As  it  is  snici  by  Peter,  *Yc  as 
lively  stones  are  built  up  a  spiritual  house.'  Again, 
Peter  in  his  Catholic  epistle,  says,  ^Put  to  death  in 
the  flesh,  but  quickened  in  the  spirit.' "  According 
to  Eusebius,  Origen  considered  the  second  of  Peter  as 
doubtful,  and  in  his  Greek  works  there  are  no  clear 
citations  from  it;  but  there  are  found  a  few  in  his 
Latin  Avorks.  In  the  passage  preserved  by  Eusebius, 
he  says,  that  some  were  doubtful  respecting  the  second 
and  third  of  John,  "  but  for  my  part,"  says  he,  "  let 
them  be  granted  to  be  his." 

Origen  has  cited  several  passages  from  Jude,  which 
are  found  in  no  other  part  of  Scripture ;  and  in  one 
place  remarks,  "  Jude  wrote  an  epistle  of  few  lines 
indeed,  but  full  of  powerful  words  and  heavenly  grace, 
who  at  the  beginning,  says,  ^  Jude  the  servant  of  Jesus 
Christ,  and  brother  of  James.'  "  In  another  place,  he 
shows,  that  some  were  doubtful  of  this  epistle,  for  he 
says,  "  But  if  any  one  receives  also  the  epistle  of  Judo, 
let  him  consider  what  will  follow,  from  what  is  there 
said."  This  epistle  is  cited  in  his  Latin  works  also; 
and  several  times  in  a  Latin  epistle  ascribed  to  Origen. 

CvPiiTAN  nowhere  quotes  the  epistle  of  James ;  but 
the  first  of  Peter  is  often  cited.  Several  times  ho 
speaks  of  it  as  the  epistle  of  Peter  to  the  people  of 
Pontus.  He  expressly  ascribes  it  to  "Peter  the  apos- 
tle," "the  apostle  of  Christ,"  &c. 

Tlie  second  of  Peter  he  never  quotes.  The  first  of 
John  is  often  quoted  by  Cyprian.  "  The  apostle  John,'* 
says  he,  "mindful  of  this  command,  writes  in  this  epis- 
tle, '  Hereby  we  perceive  that  we  know  him,  if  we 
keep  his  commandments.  He  that  saith  I  know  him, 
and  kccpeth  not  his  commandments,  is  a  liar,  and  the 


THE   SEVEN   CATHOLIC    EPISTLES.  231 

truth  is  not  in  liim.'  "  The  second  and  third  of  John 
he  never  mentions,  nor  the  epistle  of  Jude. 

The  opinion  of  Eusebius  of  Cesarrea,  respecting 
the  epistle  of  James,  was,  that  it  was  written  by  one 
of  Christ's  disciples  by  the  name  of  James,  but  he 
makes  three  of  that  name.  Although  he  admits  that 
the  writer  of  this  epistle  was  the  brother  of  our  Lord, 
who  was  made  the  first  bishop  of  Jerusalem,  yet  he 
"will  not  allow  that  he  w^as  one  of  the  twelve.  In  his 
commentary  on  the  Psalms,  he  says,  "  Is  any  among 
you  afflicted  ?  let  him  pray.  Is  any  merry  ?  let  him 
sing  psalms,  as  the  sacred  apostle  says."  In  other 
parts  of  his  works,  he  speaks  very  doubtfully  of  this 
epistle,  and  in  one  passage,  where  he  distributes  the 
books  into  classes,  he  mentions  it  among  the  books 
which  he  calls  spurious ;  by  which,  however,  he  only 
means  that  it  was  not  canonical.  In  his  ecclesiasti- 
cal history,  he  speaks  of  the  epistles  of  Peter  in  the 
following  manner,  "  One  epistle  of  Peter  called  his 
first,  is  universally  received.  This  the  presbyters  of 
ancient  times  have  quoted  in  their  writings  as  un- 
doubtedly genuine ;  but  that  called  his  second  epistle, 
■wk  have  been  informed,  has  not  been  received  into  the 
Testament.  Nevertheless,  appearing  to  many  to  be 
useful,  it  has  been  carefully  studied  with  the  other  Scrip- 
tures." And  in  another  passage,  he  says,  "  That 
called  the  first  of  John  and  the  first  of  Peter  are  to 
be  esteemed  authentic.  Of  the  controverted,  yet  well 
known  or  approved  by  the  most,  are,  that  called  the 
epistle  of  James,  and  that  of  Jude,  and  the  second  of 
Peter,  and  the  second  and  thii'd  of  John,  whether  they 
were  written  by  the  evangelist,  or  by  another." 

Atiianasius  quotes  the  epistle  of  James  as  written 


232  THE    SEVEN    CATHOLIC    EPISTLES. 

by  the  apostle  James.  The  first  epistle  of  Peter  is 
frequently  quoted  by  him ;  and  he  also  cites  passages 
from  the  second  epistle,  and  ascribes  them  to  Peter. 
Poth  the  first  and  second  epistles  of  John  are  dis- 
tinctly and  expressly  quoted :  the  third  is  not  men- 
tioned. He  also,  in  two  instances,  cites  the  words  of 
Jude. 

Jerome's  testimony  concerning  the  epistle  of  James 
is  full  and  explicit.  His  words  are,  "  James,  called 
the  Lord's  brother,  surnamed  Justus,  as  some  think 
son  of  Joseph,  by  a  former  wife ;  but  as  I  rather 
think,  the  son  of  Mary,  the  sister  of  our  Lord's  mo- 
ther, mentioned  by  John  in  his  gospel,  (soon  after  our 
Lord's  passion  ordained  by  the  apostles  bishop  of 
Jerusalem)  wrote  but  one  epistle,  which  is  among  the 
seven  Catholic  epistles ;  w^hich  too  has  been  said  to 
have  been  published  by  another  in  his  name ;  but 
gradually,  in  process  of  time,  it  has  gained  authority. 
This  is  he  of  whom  Paul  writes  in  the  epistle  to  the 
Galatians,  and  he  is  often  mentioned  in  the  Acts  of 
the  Apostles,  and  also  several  times  in  the  gospel, 
called,  "  according  to  the  Hebrews,"  lately  translated 
by  me  into  Greek  and  Latin." 

Augustine  received  all  the  Catholic  epistles.  He 
quotes  James  as  an  apostle.  He  often  cites  both  the 
epistles  of  Peter.  He  also  refers  to  John's  three  epis- 
tles, and  quotes  Jude,  and  calls  him  an  apostle. 

In  the  works  of  Ephrem,  the  Syrian,  who  lived,  and 
wrote  voluminously,  in  the  fourth  century,  there  are 
express  quotations  from  the  epistle  of  James,  from  the 
second  of  Peter,  the  second  and  third  of  John,  and 
from  Jude,  as  well  as  from  tliose  Catholic  epistles 
whk-li  were  undisputed.     lluFiN  received  all  the  books 


THE    SEVEN   CATHOLIC    EPISTLES.  233 

as  canonical,  which  are  now  so  esteemed  by  Christians 
generally.  Why  these  epistles  have  received  the  ap- 
pellation of  Catliolicy  various  reasons  have  been  as- 
signed. Some  have  supposed  that  they  were  so  called, 
because  they  contain  the  one  catholic  doctrine  which 
was  delivered  to  the  churches  by  the  apostles  of  our 
Saviour,  and  which  might  be  read  by  the  universal 
church.  Others  are  of  opinion  that  they  received  this 
appellation,  because  they  were  not  addressed  to  one 
person,  or  church,  like  the  epistles  of  Paul,  but  to  the 
Catholic  church.  This  opinion  seems  not  to  be  cor- 
rect, for  some  of  them  were  written  to  the  Christians 
of  particular  countries,  and  others  to  individuals. 

A  third  opinion,  advanced  by  Dr.  Hammond,  and 
adopted  by  Dr.  Macknight,  and  which  has  some  pro- 
bability, is,  that  the  first  of  Peter,  and  first  of  John, 
being  received  by  all  Christians,  obtained  the  name 
of  CatJwlie,  to  distinguish  them  from  those  which  at 
first  were  not  universally  received ;  but,  in  process  of 
time,  these  last,  coming  to  be  universally  received, 
were  put  into  the  same  class  with  the  first,  and  the 
whole  thenceforward  had  the  appellation  of  Catholic. 

This  denomination  is  as  old  as  the  time  of  Euse- 
bius,  and  probably  older,  for  Origen  repeatedly  called 
John's  first  epistle  Catholic ;  and  the  same  is  done  by 
Dionysius,  bishop  of  Alexandria.  The  same  appella- 
tion was  given  to  the  whole  seven  by  Athanasius, 
Epiphanius,  and  Jerome.  Of  these,  it  is  probable, 
that  the  epistle  of  James  was  first  written,  but  at  what 
precise  time,  cannot  be  determined. 

As  there  were  two  disciples  of  the  name  of  James, 
it  has  been  much  disputed  to  which  of  them  this  epis- 
tle should  be  attributed.  Lardner  and  Macknight 
20* 


234  THE    SEVEN   CATHOLIC    EPISTLES. 

liave  rendered  it  exceedingly  probable  that  tills  epis- 
tle was  written  bj  James  the  Less,  who  is  supposed  to 
have  been  related  to  oui-  Lord,  and  who  seems  for  a 
long  time  to  have  had  the  chief  authority  in  the  church 
at  Jerusalem;  but  Michaelis  is  of  a  different  opinion, 
and  says,  that  he  sees  "  no  reason  for  the  assertion, 
that  James,  the  son  of  Zebedee,  was  not  the  author  of 
this  epistle."  But  the  reasons  which  he  assigns  for 
his  opinion  have  very  little  weight. 

The  date  of  this  epistle  may,  with  considerable  pro- 
bability, be  referred  to  the  year  62 ;  for  it  is  supposed 
that  James  was  put  to  death  in  the  following  year. 
Its  canonical  authority  and  divine  inspiration,  although 
called  in  question  by  some,  in  ancient  as  well  as  mo- 
dern times,  ought  to  be  considered  as  undoubted. 
One  strong  evidence  that  it  was  thus  received  by  early 
Christians,  may  be  derived  from  the  old  Syriac  version 
of  the  New  Testament ;  which,  while  it  leaves  out 
several  other  books,  contains  this. 

It  seems  not  to  have  been  as  wtII  known  in  the 
western  churches  as  most  other  books  of  Scripture  ; 
but  learned  men  have  observed,  that  Clement  of  Rome 
has  quoted  it  no  less  than  four  times ;  and  it  is  also 
quoted  by  Ignatius,  in  his  genuine  epistle  to  the  Ephe- 
sians ;  and  we  have  already  shown  that  it  was  re- 
ceived as  the  writing  of  the  apostle  James,  by  Origen, 
Athanasius,  and  Jerome. 

The  first  epistle  of  Peter  has  ever  been  considered 
authentic,  and  has  been  cited  by  Clement  of  Rome, 
Polycarp,  the  Martyrs  of  Lyons,  Theophilus  Bishop 
of  Antioch,  Rapias,  Irenacus,  Clement  of  Alexandria, 
and  Tertullian.  The  only  matter  of  doubt  respecting 
it  is,  what  place  we  are  to  understand  by  Babylon, 


THE   SEVEN   CATHOLIC   EPISTLES.  235 

■^^here  Peter  was  when  he  wrote.  On  this  subject 
there  are  three  opinions :  the  first,  that  by  this  name 
a  place  in  Egypt  is  signified ;  the  second,  that  Baby- 
lon in  Assyria,  properly  so  called,  is  meant ;  and  the 
third,  which  is  generally  maintained  by  the  Romanists, 
and  some  Protestants,  is,  that  Rome  is  here  called 
Babylon.  Eusebius  and  Jerome  understood  that  this 
epistle  was  written  from  Rome.  The  time  of  its  being 
written  was  probably  about  the  year  of  our  Lord  65 
or  6Q. 

The  date  of  the  epistle  of  Jude  may  as  well  be 
placed  about  the  same  period,  as  at  any  other  time, 
for  we  have  no  documents  which  can  guide  us  to  any 
certain  decision.  The  objection  to  the  canonical 
authority  of  this  epistle,  derived  from  the  author's 
having  quoted  the  apocryphal  book  of  Enoch,  is  of 
no  validity;  for  the  fact  is,  that  Jude  makes  no  men- 
tion of  any  book,  but  only  of  a  prophecy,  and  there 
is  no  evidence  that  the  apocryphal  book  of  Enoch 
was  then  in  existence;  but  if  he  did  quote  a  truth 
from  such  a  book,  it  argues  no  more  against  his  inspi- 
ration than  Paul's  quoting  Epimenides  does  against 
his  being  an  inspired  man. 

The  three  epistles  of  John  were  probably  written 
about  the  year  96  or  97.  It  has  commonly  been  sup- 
posed that  the  Apocalypse  was  the  last  written  book 
of  the  New  Testament,  but  Townsend  insists  that  the 
three  epistles  of  John  were  last  written. — See  Town- 
send's  New  Testament,  vol.  ii. 


236         CANONICAL  AUTnORITY  OF 


SECTION  XII, 


CANONICAL  AUTHORITY  OF  THE  BOOK  OF  REVELATION. 

Hermas  gives  many  indications  of  having  read  the 
Revelation,  for  he  often  imitates  John's  description 
of  the  New  Jerusalem,  and  sometimes  borrows  his 
very  words.  He  speaks  of  the  Book  of  Life  and  of 
those  whose  names  are  written  in  it.  He  speaks  also 
of  the  saints  whom  he  saw,  being  clothed  in  garments 
white  as  snow.  Papias  also,  doubtless,  had  seen  the 
book  of  Revelation ;  for  some  of  his  opinions  wxre 
founded  on  a  too  literal  interpretation  of  certain  pro- 
phecies of  this  book.  But  neither  Papias  nor  Hermas 
expressly  cites  the  Revelation. 

Justin  Martyr  is  the  first  who  gives  explicit  testi- 
mony to  the  Apocalypse.  His  words  are,  "  And  a 
man  from  among  us  by  name  John,  one  of  the  apos- 
tles of  Christ,  in  the  Revelation  made  to  him,  has 
prophesied  that  the  believers  in  our  Christ  shall  live 
a  thousand  years  in  Jerusalem  ;  and  after  that,  shall 
be  the  general  and  indeed  eternal  resurrection  and 
judgment  of  all  men  together."  In  the  epistle  of  tlie 
Cliurch  of  Lyons  and  Yienne,  in  France,  which  was 
written  al)out  the  year  of  our  Lord  one  hundred  and 
eighty,  there  is  one  passage  cited  from  the  book  of 
Rovehition:  "For  he  was  indeed  a  genuine  disciple  of 
Christ,   'following  the  Lamb  whithersoever  he  goes.'  " 


THE   BOOK   OF   REVELATION.  237 

Iren^us  expressly  quotes  the  Revelation,  and 
ascribes  it  to  John  the  apostle.  And  in  one  place, 
he  says,  "It  (the  Revelation,)  was  seen  no  long  time 
ago  in  our  age,  at  the  end  of  the  reign  of  Domitian." 
And  in  the  passage  preserved  by  Eusebius,  he  speaks 
of  the  exact  and  ancient  copies  of  this  book ;  which 
he  says,  "  was  confirmed,  likewise,  by  the  concurring 
testimony  of  those  who  had  seen  John." 

Theophilus  of  Antioch,  also,  as  we  are  assured  by 
Eusebius,  cited  testimonies  from  the  Apocalypse  of 
John,  in  his  book  against  Hermogenes.  And  in  his 
works  which  are  extant,  there  is  one  passage  which 
shows  that  he  was  acquainted  with  the  Revelation. 
''This  Eve,"  says  he,  "because  she  was  deceived  by 
the  serpent — the  evil  demon,  who  is  also  called  Satan, 
who  then  spoke  to  her  by  the  serpent — does  not 
cease  to  accuse:  this  demon  is  also  called  the  Dra- 
gon." 

The  Revelation  of  John  is  often  quoted  by  Cle- 
ment of  Alexandria.  In  one  passage,  he  says,  "  Such 
an  one,  though  here  on  earth  he  be  not  honoured 
with  the  first  seat,  shall  sit  upon  the  four  and  twenty 
thrones,  judging  the  people,  as  John  says  in  the  Re- 
velation." That  Clement  believed  it  to  be  the  work 
of  the  apostle  John  is  manifest,  becaAise  in  another 
place  he  expressly  cites  a  passage,  as  the  words  of 
an  apostle;  and  we  have  just  seen  that  he  ascribes 
the  work  to  John. 

Tertullian  cites  many  things  from  the  Revelation 
of  John  ;  and  he  seems  to  have  entertained  no  doubt 
of  its  being  the  writing  of  the  apostle  John,  as  will  ap- 
peal' by  a  few  quotations ;  "  John  in  his  Apocalypse, 
is  commanded  to   correct  those  who  ate  things  sacri- 


238  CAXOXICAL   AUTHOrtlTY    OF 

ficcd  to  idols,  and  commit  fornication."  Again,  "The 
apostle  John  in  the  Apocalypse,  describes  a  sharp  two- 
edged  sword,  coming  out  of  the  mouth  of  God." — 
"  We  have  churches,  disciples  of  John,  for  though 
Marcion  rejects  his  Revelation,  the  succession  of 
bishops,  traced  to  the  original,  will  assure  us  that  John 
is  the  author."  And  in  another  place  he  has  a  long 
quotation  from  the  book  of  Revelation. 

HiPPOLYTUS,  who  lived  in  the  third  century,  and 
had  great  celebrity,  both  in  the  eastern  and  western 
churches,  received  the  Revelation  as  without  doubt 
the  production  of  the  apostle  John.  Indeed,  he  seems 
to  have  written  a  comment  on  this  book,  for  Jerome, 
in  the  list  of  his  works,  mentions  one,  "  On  the  Reve- 
lation." Ilippolytus  was  held  in  so  high  esteem,  that 
a  noble  monument  was  erected  to  him  in  the  city  of 
Rome,  which,  after  lying  for  a  long  time  buried,  was 
dug  up  near  that  city,  A.  D.  1551.  His  name, 
indeed,  is  not  now  on  the  monument,  but  it  contains  a 
catalogue  of  his  works,  several  of  which  have  the  same 
titles  as  those  ascribed  to  Ilippolytus  by  Jerome  and 
Eusebius,  together  with  others  not  mentioned  by 
them  ;  among  which  is  one  "  of  the  gospel  of  John 
and  the  Revelation." 

Origen  calls  the  writer  of  the  Apocalypse,  "  evan- 
gelist and  apostle;"  and,  on  account  of  the  predic- 
tions which  it  contains,  "  prophet"  also.  In  his  book 
against  Celsus  he  mentions  "John's  Revelation,  and 
divers  other  books  of  Scripture."  It  was  Origen's  in- 
tention to  write  a  commentary  on  this  book,  but 
whether  he  ever  carried  his  purpose  into  execution  is 
unknown.  Nothing  of  the  kind  has  reached  our 
times. 


THE   BOOK    OF   REVELATION".  239 

DiONYSius  of  Alexandria,  who  lived  about  tlie  mid- 
dle of  the  third  century,  and  was  one  of  the  most 
learned  men  of  his  time,  has  entered  into  a  more  par- 
ticular discussion  of  the  canonical  authority  of  the 
book  of  Revelation  than  any  other  ancient  author. 
From  what  has  been  said  by  him,  we  learn  on  what 
account  it  was  that  this  book,  after  having  been  uni- 
versally received  by  the  earlier  Fathers,  fell  with  some 
into  a  certain  degree  of  discredit.  About  this  time 
the  Chiliasts,  or  Millennarians,  who  held  that  Christ 
would  reign  visibly  on  earth  with  his  saints  for  a  thou- 
sand years,  during  which  period  all  manner  of  earthly 
and  sensible  pleasures  would  be  enjoyed,  made  their 
appearance.  This  opinion  they  derived  from  a  literal 
interpretation  of  some  passages  in  the  book  of  Reve- 
lation ;  and  as  their  error  was  very  repugnant  to  the 
feelings  of  most  of  the  Fathers,  they  were  led  to  doubt 
of  the  authority,  or  to  disparage  the  value  of  the  book 
from  which  it  was  derived. 

The  first  rise  of  the  Millennarians,  of  the  grosser 
kind,  seems  to  have  been  in  the  district  of  Arsinoe, 
in  Egypt,  where  one  Nepos  composed  several  works 
in  defence  of  their  doctrine ;  particularly  a  book 
"Against  the  Allegorists."  Dionysius  took  much 
pains  with  these  errorists,  and  entered  with  them 
into  a  free  and  candid  discussion  of  their  tenets,  and 
of  the  true  meaning  of  the  book  of  Revelation;  and 
had  the  satisfaction  to  reclaim  a  number  of  them  from 
their  erroneous  opinions.  His  own  opinion  of  the* 
Revelation  he  gives  at  large,  and  informs  us,  that 
some  who  lived  before  his  time  had  utterly  rejected 
this  book,  and  ascribed  it  to  Cerinthus ;  but,  for  hi? 
own  part,  he  professes  to  believe  that  it  was  wiitteu 


240  CANONICAL   AUTHORITT    OF 

by  an  inspired  man,  -whose  name  was  John,  but  a 
different  person  from  the  apostle  of  that  name ;  for 
which  opinion  he  assigns  several  reasons,  but  none 
of  much  weight.  His  principal  reason  is,  that  the 
lano-uacre  of  this  book  is  different  from  that  of  the 
apostle  John  in  his  other  writings.  To  which  Lard- 
ner  judiciously  answers,  that  supposing  this  to  be 
the  fact,  it  will  not  prove  the  point,  for  the  style  of 
prophecy  is  very  different  from  the  epistolary  or 
historical  style.  But  this  laborious  and  learned  col- 
lector of  facts  denies  that  there  is  such  a  difference 
of  style,  as  to  lay  a  foundation  for  this  opinion ;  and, 
in  confirmation  of  his  own  opinion,  he  descends  to 
particulars,  and  shows  that  there  are  some  striking 
points  of  resemblance  between  the  language  of  the 
Apocalypse  and  the  acknowledged  writings  of  the 
apostle  John. 

The  opinion  of  those  persons  who  believed  it  to  be 
the  work  of  Cerinthus,  is  utterly  without  foundation  ; 
for  this  book  contains  opinions  expressly  contrary  to 
those  maintained  by  this  heretic ;  and  even  on  the 
subject  of  the  millennium  his  views  did  not  coincide 
with  those  expressed  in  the  Revelation.  Caius  seems 
to  have  been  the  only  ancient  author  who  attributed 
this  book  to  Cerinthus,  and  to  him  Dionysius  probably 
referred  when  he  spoke  of  some,  before  his  time,  who 
held  tliis  opinion.  Cyi'IIIAN,  bishop  of  Carthage,  re- 
ceived the  book  of  Revelation  as  of  canonical  authority, 
as  appears  by  the  manner  in  which  he  quotes  it. 
"Hear,"  says  he,  "in  the  Revelation,  the  voice  of 
thy  Lord,  reproving  such  men  as  these,  '  Thou  sayest 
I  am  rich  and  increased  in  goo<ls,  and  have  need  of 
nothing,  and  knowest  not  that  thou  art  wretched,  and 


THE   BOOK   OF  REVELATION.  241 

miserable,  and  poor,  and  blind,  and  naked.'  "  Rev. 
iii.  17.  Again,  "  So  in  the  Holy  Scriptures,  by  which 
the  Lord  would  have  us  to  be  instructed  and  warned, 
is  the  harlot  city  described."  Rev.  xvii.  1 — 3.  Finally, 
^'  That  waters  signify  people,  the  divine  Scriptures 
show  in  the  Revelation." 

ViCTORiNUS,  who  lived  towards  the  close  of  the 
third  century,  often  cites  the  book  of  Revelation,  and 
ascribes  it  to  John  the  apostle.  That  Lactantius 
received  this  book  is  manifest,  because  he  has  written 
much  respecting  the  future  destinies  of  the  church, 
which  is  founded  on  the  prophecies  which  it  contains. 

Until  the  fourth  century,  then,  it  appears  that  the 
Revelation  was  almost  universally  received ;  not  a 
writer  of  any  credit  calls  it  in  question ;  and  but  one 
hesitates  about  ascribing  it  to  John  the  apostle  ;  but 
even  he  held  it  to  be  written  by  an  inspired  man. 
But,  about  the  beginning  of  the  fourth  century,  it 
began  to  fall  into  discredit  with  some  on  account  of 
the  mysterious  nature  of  its  contents,  and  the  en- 
couragement which  it  was  supposed  to  give  to  the 
Chiliasts.  Therefore  Eusebius  of  Cesaraea,  after 
giving  a  list  of  such  books  as  were  universally  re- 
ceived, adds,  "  After  these,  if  it  be  thought  fit,  may  be 
placed  the  Revelation  of  John,  concerning  which  we 
shall  observe  the  different  opinions  at  a  proper  time." 
And  again,  "  There  are,  concerning  this  book,  differ- 
ent opinions." 

This  is  the  first  doubt  expressed  by  any  respectable 
writer  concerning  the  canonical  authority  of  this 
book ;  and  Eusebius  did  not  reject  it,  but  would  have 
it  placed  next  after  those  which  were  received  with 
universal  consent.  And  w^e  find  at  this  very  time, 
21 


242         CANOXICAL  AUTnORITY  OF 

the  most  learned  and  judicious  of  the  Fathers  received 
the  Revelation  without  scruple,  and  annexed  it  to  their 
catalogues  of  the  books  of  the  New  Testament.  Thus 
Athaxasius,  after  giving  an  account  of  the  twenty- 
two  canonical  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  proceeds 
to  enumerate  the  books  of  the  New  Testament,  in  the 
following  manner,  which  he  makes  eight  in  number : — ■ 
1.  Matthew's  gospel;  2.  Mark's;  3.  Luke's;  4.  John's; 
5.  The  Acts;  6.  The  Catholic  epistles;  7.  Paul's 
fourteen  epistles ;  and  8.  the  Revelation,  given  to 
John  the  evangelist  and  divine  in  Patmos. 

Jerome,  in  giving  an  account  of  the  writings  of 
John  the  evangelist,  speaks  also  of  another  John,  called 
the  presbyter,  to  whom  some  ascribed  the  second  and 
third  epistles  under  the  name  of  John.  And  we  have 
already  seen  that  Dionysius  of  Alexandria  ascribed 
the  Revelation  to  another  John.  This  opinion,  we 
learn  from  Jerome,  originated  in  the  fact,  that  two 
monuments  were  found  at  Ephesus,  each  inscribed 
with  the  name  JOHX ;  but  he  says,  ''Some  think 
that  both  the  monuments  are  of  John  the  evangelist." 
Then  he  proceeds  to  give  some  account  of  the  Revela- 
tion. "Domitian,"  says  he,  "in  the  fourteenth  year 
of  his  reign,  raising  the  second  persecution  after  Nero, 
John  was  banished  into  the  isle  of  Patmos,  where  he 
wrote  the  Revelation,  which  Justin  Martyr  and  Irc- 
naius  explain."  Augustixe,  also,  received  the  book 
of  Revelation,  and  quotes  it  very  frequently.  lie  as- 
cribes it  to  the  same  John  who  wrote  the  gospel  and 
the  epistles. 

From  the  view  which  has  been  taken  of  the  testi- 
monies in  fav^our  of  the  book  of  Revelation,  I  tliink  it 
must   appear  manifest  to   every  candid  reader,  that 


THE  BOOK   OF  EEVELATION.  243 

few  books  in  the  New  Testament  have  more  complete 
evidence  of  canonical  authority.  The  only  thing 
which  requires  explanation  is,  the  omission  of  this 
book  in  so  many  of  the  catalogues  of  the  Fathers,  and 
of  ancient  councils.  Owing  to  the  mysterious  nature 
of  the  contents  of  this  book,  and  to  the  abuse  of  its 
prophecies,  by  the  too  literal  construction  of  them  by 
the  Millennarians,  it  was  judged  expedient  not  to  have 
this  book  read  publicly  in  the  churches.  Now,  the 
end  of  forming  these  catalogues  was  to  guide  the 
people  in  reading  the  Scriptures ;  and  as  it  seems  not 
to  have  been  desired,  that  the  people  should  read  this 
mysterious  book,  it  was  omitted  by  many  in  their 
catalogues.  Still,  however,  a  majority  of  them  have 
it ;  and  some  who  omitted  it,  are  known  to  have  re- 
jceived  it  as  canonical. 

This  also  will  account  for  the  fact,  that  many  of 
the  manuscripts  of  the  New  Testament  are  without 
the  Revelation ;  so  that  there  are  extant,  compara- 
tively, few  copies  of  this  book.  But  the  authenticity 
and  authority  of  the  Apocalypse  stand  on  ground 
which  can  never  be  shaken ;  and  the  internal  evi- 
dence is  strong  in  favour  of  a  divine  origin.  There 
is  a  sublimity,  purity,  and  consistency  in  it,  which 
could  not  have  proceeded  from  an  impostor.  In 
addition  to  all  which,  we  observe,  that  the  fulfilment 
of  many  of  the  predictions  of  this  book  is  so  remark- 
able, that  to  many  learned  men  who  have  attended 
to  this  subject,  the  evidence  from  this  source  alone 
is  demonstrative  of  its  divine  origin.  And  there  is 
every"  reason  to  believe,  that  in  the  revolution  of 
events  this  book,  which  is  now  to  many  sealed  with 
seven  seals,  will  be  opened,  and  will  be  so  explained, 


244  THE   BOOK   OF   REVELATION. 

that  all  men  will  see  and  acknowledge  that  it  is  in- 
deed "  The  Revelation  of  Jesus  Christ,  which  God 
gave  unto  him,  to  show  unto  his  servants  things  which 
must  shortly  come  to  pass — and  sent  and  signified  it 
by  his  angel  to  his  servant  John,  who  bare  record 
of  the  word  of  God,  and  the  testimony  of  Jesus 
Christ."  Rev.  i.  1,  2. 


GENERAL  EEMARKS.  245 


SECTION  XIII, 


THE  TITLES  GIVEN  TO  THE  SACRED  SCRIPTURES  BY  THE 
FATHERS — THESE  BOOKS  NOT  CONCEALED,  BUT  PARTI- 
ALLY KNOWN  AND  REFERRED  TO  BY  ENEMIES  AS  WELL 
AS  FRIENDS — CITATIONS ANCIENT  MANUSCRIPTS — RE- 
MARKS OF  RENNELL. 

After  having  given  a  particular  account  of  the 
several  books  of  the  New  Testament,  it  may  be  useful 
to  subjoin  a  few  general  remarks  on  the  testimony 
exhibited. 

1.  The  writings  of  the  apostles,  from  the  time  of 
their  first  publication,  were  distinguished  by  all  Chris- 
tians from  all  other  books.  They  were  spoken  of  by 
the  Fathers,  as  "Scripture;"  as  "divine  Scripture;" 
as  "inspired  of  the  Lord;"  as,  "given  by  the  inspira- 
tion of  the  Holy  Ghost."  The  only  question  ever 
agitated,  respecting  any  of  these  books,  was,  whether 
they  were  indeed  the  productions  of  the  apostles. 
When  this  was  clear,  no  man  disputed  their  divine 
authority,  or  considered  it  lawful  to  dissent  from 
their  dictates.  They  were  considered  as  occupying 
the  same  place,  in  regard  to  inspiration  and  authority, 
as  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  in  imita- 
tion of  this  denomination  they  were  called  the  New 
Testament.  The  other  names  by  which  they  were 
distinguished,  were  such  as  these,  the  gospel; — the 
21* 


246  GENERAL   REMARKS. 

apostles  ; — the  divine  gospels  ; — the  evangelical  in- 
strument ; — the  Scriptures  of  the  Lord ; — holy  Scrip- 
tures ; — evangelical  voice  ; — divine  Scriptures  ; — Ora- 
cles of  the  Lord  ; — divine  fountains  ; — fountains  of 
the  divine  fulness. 

2.  These  books  were  not  in  obscurity,  but  were 
read  with  veneration  and  avidity  by  multitudes.  They 
were  read  not  only  by  the  learned,  but  by  the  people ; 
not  only  in  private,  but  constantly  in  the  public  as- 
semblies of  Christians,  as  appears  by  the  explicit  tes- 
timony of  Justin  Martyr,  Tertullian,  Eusebius,  Cy- 
prian, and  Augustine.  And  no  other  books  were 
thus  venerated  and  read.  If  some  other  pieces  were 
publicly  read,  yet  the  Fathers  always  made  a  wide 
distinction  between  them  and  the  sacred  Scriptures. 

3.  In  all  the  controversies  which  arose  in  the 
church,  these  books  were  acknowledged  by  all  to  be 
decisive  authority,  unless  by  some  few  of  the  very 
worst  heretics,  who  mutilated  the  Scriptures,  and 
forged  others  for  themselves,  under  the  names  of  the 
apostles.  But  most  of  the  heretics  endeavoured  to 
support  their  opinions  by  an  appeal  to  the  writings 
of  the  New  Testament.  The  Valentinians,  the  Mon- 
tanists,  the  Sabellians,  the  Artemonites,  the  Arians, 
received  the  Scriptures  of  the  New  Testament.  The 
same  was  the  case  with  the  Priscillianists  and  the 
Pelagians.  In  the  Arian  controversy,  which  occupied 
the  church  so  long  and  so  earnestly,  the  Scriptures 
were  appealed  to  by  both  parties;  and  no  controversy 
arose  respecting  the  authenticity  of  the  books  of  the 
New  Testament. 

4.  The  avowed  enemies  of  Christianity,  who  wrote 
against  the  truth,  recognized   the   books  which  are 


CELSUS,    PORPHYRY   AND   JULIAN.  247 

now  In  the  Canon,  as  those  acknowledged  by  Chris- 
tians in  their  times,  for  they  refer  to  the  matters  con- 
tained in  them,  and  some  of  them  mention  several 
hooks  by  name ;  so  that  it  appears  from  the  accounts 
which  we  have  of  these  writings,  that  they  were 
acquainted  with  the  volume  of  the  New  Testament. 
Celsus,  who  lived  and  wrote  less  than  a  hundred 
years  after  the  apostles,  says,  as  is  testified  by  Ori- 
gen,  who  answered  him,  "  I  could  say  many  things 
concerning  the  affairs  of  Jesus,  and  those  too  differ- 
ent from  what  is  written  by  the  disciples  of  Jesus, 
but  I  purposely  omit  them."  That  Celsus  here  refers 
to  the  gospels  there  can  be  no  doubt.  In  another 
place,  he  says,  "  These  things  then  we  have  alleged 
to  you  out  of  your  oivn  writings."  And  that  the 
gospels  to  which  he  referred  were  the  same  as  those 
which  we  now  possess,  is  evident  from  his  reference  to 
matters  contained  in  them. 

Porphyry  in  the  third  century  wrote  largely,  and 
professedly,  against  the  Christian  religion ;  and  al- 
though his  work  has  shared  the  same  fate  as  that  of 
Celsus,  yet,  from  some  fragments  which  have  been 
preserved,  we  can  ascertain  that  he  was  well  ac- 
quainted with  the  four  gospels,  for  the  things  to 
which  he  objects  are  still  contained  in  them. 

But  the  emperor  Julian  expressly  mentions  Mat- 
thew and  Luke,  and  cites  various  things  out  of  the 
gospels.  He  speaks  also  of  John,  and  alleges  that 
none  of  Christ's  disciples  beside  ascribed  to  him  the 
creation  of  the  world ;  —  and  also,  "  that  neither 
Paul,  nor  Matthew,  nor  Luke,  nor  Mark,  has  dared 
to  call  Jesus,  God;" — "that  John  wrote  later  than 
the   other  evangelists,  and  at  a  time   when  a  great 


248  CELSUS,    PORPHYRY   AND   JULIAN. 

number  of  men  in  the  cities  of  Greece  and  Italy  were 
converted."  He  alludes  to  the  conversion  of  Corne- 
lius and  Sergius  Paulus ;  to  Peter's  vision,  and  to  the 
circular  letter  sent  by  the  apostles  at  Jerusalem  to 
the  churches ;  which  things  are  recorded  in  the  Acts 
of  the  Apostles.* 

Now,  if  the  genuineness  of  these  books  could  have 
been  impugned  on  any  plausible  grounds ;  or  if  any 
doubt  had  existed  respecting  this  matter,  surely  such 
men  as  Celsus,  Porphyry,  and  Julian,  could  not  have 
been  ignorant  of  the  matter,  and  would  not  have 
failed  to  bring  forward  everything  of  this  kind 
"which  they  knew ;  for  their  hostility  to  Christianity 
was  unbounded.  And  it  is  certain,  that  Porphyry 
did  avail  himself  of  an  objection  of  this  kind  in  re- 
gard to  the  book  of  Daniel.  Since  then  not  one  of 
the  early  enemies  of  Christianity  ever  suggested  a 
doubt  of  the  genuineness  of  the  books  of  the  New 
Testament,  we  may  rest  assured  that  no  ground  of 
doubt  existed  in  their  day ;  and  that  the  fact  of  these 
being  the  genuine  writings  of  the  men  whose  names 
they  bear,  was  too  clearly  established  to  admit  any 
doubt.  The  genuineness  of  the  books  of  the  New 
Testament  having  been  admitted  by  friends  and  ene- 
mies— hy  the  orthodox  and  heretics,  in  those  ages 
when  the  fact  could  be  ascertained  easily,  it  is  too 
late  in  the  day  7iow  for  infidels  to  call  this  matter  in 
question. 

5.  But  the  testimony  which  we  possess,  is  not  only 
Bufiicient  to  prove  that  the  books  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment were  written  by  the  persons  whose  names  they 
bear,  but  also  that  these  books,  in  the  early  ages  of 
*  Sec  Lardner  and  Palcy. 


EARLY  VERSIONS.  249 

tlie  cliurcli,  contained  the  same  things  which  are  now 
read  in  them.  Omitting  any  particular  notice  of 
about  half  a  dozen  passages,  the  genuineness  of  which 
is  in  dispute,  I  would  remark,  that  when  we  compare 
the  numerous  and  copious  quotations  from  these  books, 
which  are  found  in  the  writings  of  the  Fathers,  with 
our  own  copies,  the  argument  is  most  satisfactory. 
It  is  true,  indeed,  that  the  Fathers  do  sometimes  ap- 
parently quote  from  memory ;  and  in  that  case,  the 
words  of  the  sacred  writer  are  a  little  changed  or  trans- 
posed, but  the  sense  is  accurately  retained.  In  gene- 
ral, however,  the  quotations  of  Scripture,  in  the  wri- 
tings of  the  Fathers,  are  verbally  exact ;  there  being 
no  other  variation,  than  what  arises  from  the  different 
idiom  of  the  language  which  they  use.  I  suppose 
that  almost  every  verse,  in  some  books  of  the  New 
Testament,  has  been  cited  by  one  or  another  of  the 
Fathers ;  so  that  if  that  book  were  lost,  it  might  be 
restored  by  means  of  the  quotations  from  it  in  other 
books. 

But  besides  these  quotations,  we  have  versions  of 
the  whole  New  Testament  into  various  lano-uag-es, 
some  of  which  were  made  very  early,  probably  not 
much  later  than  the  end  of  the  first,  or  beginninar  of 
the  second  century.  Now,  on  a  comparison,  all 
these  versions  contain  the  same  discourses,  parables, 
miracles,  doctrines,  precepts,  and  divine  institutions. 
Indeed,  so  literal  have  been  most  versions  of  the 
New  Testament,  that  they  answer  to  one  another, 
and  to  the  original,  almost  word  for  word. 

Besides,  there  are  in  existence  hundreds  and  thou- 
sands of  manuscripts  of  the  New  Testament,  which 
were  written  in  different  ages  of  the  church,  from 


250  AXCIEXT    MANUSCRIPTS. 

the  fourth  or  fifth  century  until  the  sixteenth.  Most 
of  these  have  been  penned  with  great  care,  and  in 
the  finest  style  of  calligraphy.  The  oldest  are  writ- 
ten on  beautiful  parchment,  in  what  are  called  un- 
cial, or  capital  letters.  Some  of  these  manuscripts 
contain  all  the  books  of  the  New  Testament ;  others 
only  a  part ;  and  in  some  instances,  a  single  book. 
Some  are  in  a  state  of  good  preservation,  while  others 
are  worn  and  mutilated,  and  the  writing  so  obscure 
as  to  be  scarcely  legible.  And  what  is  very  remark- 
able, some  copies  of  the  New  Testament  on  parch- 
ment have  been  found  written  over  again  with  other 
matter,  after  the  original  words  had  been  as  fully 
obliterated  as  could  easily  be  done.  This  seems  a 
very  strange  practice,  considering  that  good  copies 
of  the  Bible  must  have  been  always  too  few ;  but  the 
scarcity  of  parchment  was  so  great,  that  men  who 
were  anxious  to  communicate  their  own  lucubrations 
to  the  public,  would  resort  to  any  shift  to  procure 
the  materials  for  writing.  And  this  is  not  more  cul- 
pable or  more  wonderful  than  wdiat  has  been  known 
to  take  place  in  our  own  land  and  times,  where  the 
leaves  of  Walton's  Polyglot  Bible  have  been  torn  and 
used  for  wrapping  paper. 

The  exact  age  of  the  oldest  manuscripts  of  the  New 
Testament  cannot  be  accurately  ascertnined,  as  tlu^y 
have  no  dates  accompanying  them  which  can  safely 
be  depended  on  ;  but  as  it  is  pretty  well  known  at 
what  period  Greek  accents  were  introduced,  and 
also  when  the  large  uncial  letter,  as  it  is  called, 
was  exchanged  for  the  small  letter  now  in  common 
use  ;  if  a  manuscript  is  found  written  in  the  old  fasliion, 
in  large  letters,  without  intervals  between  the  words, 


REMARKS    OF   MR.    RENNEL.  251 

and  without  accents,  it  is  known  that  it  must  be  more 
ancient  than  the  period  when  the  mode  of  writing  was 
changed.  Now,  it  is  manifest,  that  when  these  manu- 
scripts were  penned,  the  Canon  was  settled  by  common 
consent,  for  they  all  contain  the  same  books,  as  far  as 
as  they  go. 

I  will  sum  up  my  observations  on  the  Canon  of  the 
New  Testament,  by  quoting  a  sensible  and  very  ap- 
propriate passage  from  the  late  learned  Mr.  Rennel. 
It  is  found  in  his  Remarks  on  Hone's  Collection  of 
the  apocryphal  writings  of  the  apostolic  age. 

"  When  was  the  Canon  of  Scripture  determined  ? 
It  was  determined  immediately  after  the  death  of 
John,  the  last  survivor  of  the  apostolic  order.  The 
Canon  of  the  gospels  was  indeed  determined  before 
his  death,  for  we  read  in  Eusebius,  that  he  gave  his 
sanction  to  the  three  other  gospels,  and  completed 
this  part  of  the  New  Testament  with  his  own.  By 
the  death  of  John,  the  catalogue  of  Scripture  was 
completed  and  closed.  We  have  seen,  both  from  the 
testimony  of  themselves  and  of  their  immediate  succes- 
sors, that  the  inspiration  of  writing  was  confined 
strictly  to  the  apostles,  and  accordingly  Ave  find  that 
no  similar  pretensions  were  ever  made  by  any  true 
Christian  to  a  similar  authority. 

"  By  whom  was  the  Canon  of  Scripture  determined? 
It  was  determined  not  by  the  decision  of  any  indi- 
vidual, nor  by  the  decree  of  any  council,  but  by  the 
general  consent  of  the  whole  and  every  part  of  the 
Christian  church.  It  is,  indeed,  a  remarkable  cir- 
cumstance, that  among  the  various  disputes  which 
so  early  agitated  the  church,  the  Canon  of  Scripture 
was  never  a  subject  of  controversy.     If  any  question 


252  REMARKS   OF   MR.    RENNEL. 

miorlit  be  said  to  have  arisen,  it  was  in  reference  to 
one  or  two  of  those  books  which  are  included  in  the 
present  Canon ;  but  with  respect  to  those  which  are 
out  of  the  Canon  no  difference  of  opinion  ever 
existed. 

"  The  reason  of  this  agreement  is  a  very  satisfac- 
tory one.  Every  one  who  is  at  all  versed  in  Eccle- 
siastical History  is  aware  of  the  continual  inter- 
course which  took  place  in  the  apostolical  age  be- 
tween the  various  branches  of  the  church  universal. 
This  communication,  as  Mr.  Nolan  has  well  ob- 
served, arose  out  of  the  Jewish  polity,  under  which 
various  synagogues  of  the  Jews  which  were  dispersed 
throughout  the  gentile  world,  were  all  subjected  to 
the  Sanhedrim  at  Jerusalem,  and  maintained  a  con- 
stant correspondence  with  it.  Whenever  then  an 
epistle  arrived  at  any  particular  church,  it  was  first 
authenticated ;  it  was  then  read  to  all  the  holy  breth- 
ren, and  was  subsequently  transmitted  to  some  other 
neiffhbourinDr  church.  Thus  we  find  that  the  authen- 
tication  of  the  epistles  of  Paul  was,  *  the  salutation 
with  his  own  hands/  by  which  the  church  to  which 
the  epistle  was  first  addressed  might  be  assured  that 
it  was  not  a  forgery.  We  find  also  a  solemn  adju- 
ration of  the  same  apostle,  that  his  epistle  '  should  be 
read  to  all  the  holy  brethren.'  '  When  this  epistle 
is  read  among  you,  cause  that  it  be  read  also  in  the 
church  of  the  Laodiccans,  and  that  ye  likewise  read 
the  epistle  from  Laodicea.'  2  Thess.  iii.  17;  1  Thess. 
v.  27 ;  Col.  iv.  6.  From  this  latter  passage  we  infer, 
that  the  system  of  transmission  was  a  very  general 
one,  as  the  epistle  which  Paul  directs  the  Colossians 
to  receive  froin    the   Laodiccans   was  not    originally 


EEMARKS    OF    MR.    REXNEL.  253 

directed  to  the  latter,  but  was  sent  to  them  from 
some  other  church.  To  prevent  any  mistake  or  fraud, 
this  transmission  was  made  by  the  highest  authority, 
namely,  by  that  of  the  bishop.  Through  him  official 
communications  were  sent  from  one  church  to  another, 
even  in  the  remotest  countries.  Clement,  the  bishop 
of  Rome,  communicated  with  the  church  at  Corinth ; 
Poly  carp,  the  bishop  of  Sm^ama,  wrote  an  epistle  to 
the  Philippians  ;  Ignatius,  the  bishop  of  Antioch,  cor- 
responded with  the  churches  of  Rome,  of  Magnesia, 
of  Ephesus,  and  others.  These  three  bishops  were 
the  companions  and  immediate  successors  of  the  apos- 
tles, and  followed  the  system  of  correspondence  and 
intercourse  which  their  masters  had  begun.  Con- 
sidering all  these  circumstances,  we  shall  be  convinced 
how  utterly  improbable  it  w^as,  that  any  authentic 
work  of  an  apostle  should  have  existed  in  one  church 
without  being  communicated  to  another.  It  is  a  very 
mistaken  notion  of  Dodwell,  that  the  books  of  the 
New  Testament  lay  concealed  in  the  coffers  of  par- 
ticular churches  and  were  not  known  to  the  rest  of 
the  world  until  the  late  days  of  Trajan.  This  might 
have  been  perfectly  true,  with  respect  to  the  originals, 
which  were  doubtless  guarded  with  peculiar  care,  in 
the  custody  of  the  particular  churches  to  which  they 
were  respectively  addressed.  But  copies  of  these 
originals,  attested  by  the  authority  of  the  bishop, 
were  transmitted  from  one  church  to  another  with  the 
utmost  freedom,  and  were  thus  rapidly  dispersed 
throughout  the  Christian  world.  As  a  proof  of 
this,  Peter,  in  an  epistle  addressed  generally  to 
the  churches  in  Asia,  speaks  of  'all  the  epistles  of 
22 


254  REMARKS    OF    MR.    REXXEL. 

Paul,'  as  a  body  of  Scripture,  universally  circulated 
and  kno^vn. 

"  The  number  of  the  apostles,  including  Paul  and 
Barnabas,  was  but  fourteen.  To  these,  and  these 
alone,  in  the  opinion  of  the  early  church,  was  the  in- 
spiration of  writing  confined:  out  of  these,  six  only 
deemed  it  necessary  to  write ;  what  they  did  write, 
was  authenticated  with  the  greatest  caution,  and  cir- 
culated with  the  utmost  rapidity ;  what  was  received 
in  any  church  as  the  writing  of  an  apostle,  was  pub- 
licly read ;  no  church  was  left  to  itself,  or  to  its  own 
direction,  but  was  frequently  visited  by  the  apostles, 
and  corresponded  with  by  their  successors.  All  the 
distant  members  of  the  church  universal,  in  the  apos- 
tles' age,  being  united  by  frequent  intercourse  and 
communication,  became  one  body  in  Christ.  Taking 
all  these  things  into  consideration,  we  shall  see  with 
what  ease  and  rapidity  the  Canon  of  Scripture  would 
be  formed,  there  being  no  room  either  for  fraudulent 
fabrication  on  the  one  hand,  or  for  arbitrary  rejec- 
tion on  the  other.  The  case  was  too  clear  to  require 
any  formal  discussion,  nor  does  it  appear  that  there 
was  any  material  forgery  that  could  render  it  neces- 
sary. 

"  The  writings  of  the  apostles,  and  of  the  apostles 
alone,  were  received  as  the  word  of  God,  and  were 
separated  from  all  others,  by  that  most  decisive  species 
of  authority,  the  authority  of  a  general,  an  immediate, 
and  an  undisputed  consent.  This  will  appear  the 
more  satisfactory  to  our  minds  if  we  take  an  example 
from  the  age  in  which  we  live.  The  letters  of  Junius, 
for  instance,  were  published  at  intervals  within  a  cer- 
tain period.     Since  the  publication  of  the  last  authen- 


KEMARKS    OF   MR.    RENNEL.  255 

tic  letter,  many  under  tliat  signature  have  appeared, 
purporting  to  have  heen  written  by  the  same  author. 
But  this  circumstance  throws  no  obscurity  over  the 
matter,  nor  is  the  Canon  of  Junius,  if  I  may  transfer 
the  term  from  sacred  to  secular  writing,  involved  in 
any  difficulty  or  doubt.  If  it  should  be  hereafter  in- 
quired, at  what  time,  or  by  what  authority  the  authen- 
tic letters  were  separated  from  the  spurious,  the  an- 
swer will  be,  that  such  a' separation  never  took  place; 
but  that  the  Canon  of  Junius  was  immediately  deter- 
mined after  the  last  letter.  To  us,  wdio  live  so  near 
the  time  of  publication,  the  line  of  distinction  betw^een 
the  genuine  and  spurious  is  so  strongly  marked,  and 
the  evidence  of  authenticity  on  the  one  side,  and  of 
forgery  on  the  other,  is  so  clear  and  convincing,  that 
a  formal  rejection  of  the  latter  is  unnecessary.  The 
case  has  long  since  been  determined  by  the  tacit  con- 
sent of  the  whole  British  nation,  and  no  man  in  his 
senses  would  attempt  to  dispute  it. 

"  Yet  how  much  stronger  is  the  case  of  the  Scrip- 
tural Canon !  The  author  of  Junius  was  known  to 
none.  He  could  not  therefore  of  himself  bear  any  tes- 
timony to  the  authenticity  of  his  works  ;  the  authors 
of  the  New  Testament  were  known  to  all,  and  were 
especially  careful  to  mark,  to  authenticate,  and  to 
distinguish  their  writings.  The  author  of  Junius  had 
no  personal  character  which  could  stamp  his  writing 
wuth  any  high  or  special  authority ;  whatever  pro- 
ceeded from  the  apostles  of  Christ,  was  immediately 
regarded  as  the  offspring  of  an  exclusive  inspiration. 
For  the  Canon  of  Junius  we  have  no  external  evi- 
dence, but  that  of  a  single  publisher :  for  the  Canon 
of  Scripture,   we   have   the    testimony   of    churches 


256  REMARKS    OF   MR.    REXNEL. 

■which  were  visited,  bishops  who  were  appointed,  and 
converts  innumerable,  who  were  instructed  by  the 
apostles  themselves.  It  was  neither  the  duty  nor  the 
interest  of  any  one,  excepting  the  publisher,  to  pre- 
serve the  volume  of  Junius  from  spurious  editions  :  to 
guard  the  integrity  of  the  sacred  volume  was  the 
bounden  duty  of  every  Christian  who  believed  that 
its  words  were  the  words  of  eternal  life. 

"  If  then,  notwithstanding  these  and  other  difficul- 
ties which  might  be  adduced,  the  Canon  of  Junius  is 
established  beyond  controversy  or  dispute,  by  the  ta- 
cit consent  of  all  who  live  in  the  age  in  which  it  was 
written,  there  can  be  no  reason  why  the  Canon  of 
Scripture,  under  circumstances  infinitely  stronger, 
ghould  not  have  been  determined  in  a  manner  pre- 
cisely the  same ;  especially  when  we  remember,  that 
in  both  cases  the  forgeries  made  their  appearance 
subsequently  to  the  determination  of  the  Canon.  There 
is  not  a  single  book  in  the  sj^urious  department  of  the 
apocryphal  volume  which  was  even  known  when  the 
Canon  of  Scripture  was  determined.  This  is  a  fact 
which  considerably  strengthens  the  case.  There  was 
no  difficulty  or  dispute  in  framing  the  Canon  of  Scrip- 
ture, because  there  were  no  competitors  whose  claims 
it  was  expedient  to  examine  ;  no  forgeries,  whose  im- 
postures it  was  necessary  to  detect.  The  first  age  of 
the  church  was  an  age  of  too  much  vigilance,  of  too 
much  communication,  of  too  much  authority  for  any 
fabrication  of  Scripture,  to  hope  for  success.  If  any 
attempt  was  made  it  was  instantly  crushed.  When 
the  authority  of  the  apostles  and  of  apostolic  men  had 
lost  its  influence,  and  heresies  and  disputes  had  arisen, 
then  it  was  that  forgeries  began  to  ajjpear    .... 


REMARKS   OF   MR.    RENNEL.  257 

Nothing,  indeed,  but  the  general  and  long  determined 
consent  of  the  whole  Christian  world,  could  have  pre- 
served the  sacred  volume  in  its  integrity,  unimpaired 
by  the  mutilation  of  one  set  of  heretics,  and  unincum- 
bered by  the  forgeries  of  another." 


22* 


258  KO   CANONICAL   BOOK 


SECTION  XIV. 


NO  CANONICAL  BOOK  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  HAS  BEEN 
LOST. 

This  was  a  subject  of  warm  dispute  between  the  Ro- 
manists and  Protestants  at  the  time  of  the  Reforma- 
tion. The  former,  to  make  room  for  their  farrago  of 
unwritten  traditions,  maintained  the  affirmative ;  and 
such  men  as  Bellarmine  and  Pineda  asserted  roundly, 
that  some  of  the  most  valuable  parts  of  the  canonical 
Scriptures  W€re  lost.  The  Protestants,  on  the  other 
hand,  to  support  the  sufficiency  and  perfection  of  the 
Holy  Scriptures,  the  corner  stone  of  the  Reformation, 
strenuously  and  successfully  contended,  that  no  part 
of  the  canonical  volume  had  been  lost. 

But  the  opinion,  that  some  inspired  books,  which 
once  belonged  to  the  Canon,  have  been  lost,  has  been 
maintained  by  some  more  respectable  writers  than 
those  Romanists  just  mentioned.  Chrysostom,  The- 
ophylact,  Calvin,  and  Whitaker,  have  all,  in  some 
degree,  countenanced  the  same  opinion,  in  order  to 
avoid  some  difficulty,  or  to  answer  some  particular 
purpose.  The  subject,  so  far  as  the  Old  Testament  is 
concerned,  has  already  been  considered ;  it  shall  now 
be  our  endeavour  to  show  that  no  canonical  book  of 
the  New  Testament  has  been  lost. 


HAS   BEEN   LOST.  259 

And  here  I  am  ready  to  concede,  as  Avas  before 
done,  that  there  may  have  been  books  written  by  in- 
spired men  that  have  been  lost :  for  inspiration  was 
occasional,  not  constant ;  and  confined  to  matters  of 
faith,  and  not  afforded  on  the  affairs  of  this  life,  or  in 
matters  of  mere  science.  If  Paul  or  Peter,  or  any 
other  apostle,  had  occasion  to  write  private  letters  to 
their  friends,  on  subjects  not  connected  with  religion, 
there  is  no  reason  to  think  that  these  were  inspired ; 
and  if  such  writings  have  been  lost,  the  Canon  of 
Scripture  has  suffered  no  more  by  this  means  than 
by  the  loss  of  anj  other  uninspired  books. 

But  again,  I  am  willing  to  go  further  and  say,  that 
it  is  possible,  (although  I  know  no  evidence  of  the 
fact,)  that  some  things  written  under  the  influence  of 
inspiration  for  a  particular  occasion,  and  to  rectify 
some  disorder  in  a  particular  church,  may  have  been 
lost  without  injury  to  the  Canon.  For  as  much  that 
the  apostles  preached  by  inspiration  is  undoubtedly 
lost,  so  there  is  no  reason  why  every  word  which 
they  wrote  must  necessarily  be  preserved  and  form 
a  part  of  the  canonical  volume.  For  example,  sup- 
pose that  when  Paul  said,  1  Cor.  v.  9,  "I  wrote  to 
you  in  an  epistle  not  to  company  with  fornicators,"  he 
referred  to  an  epistle  which  he  had  written  to  the 
Corinthians  before  the  one  now  called  the  first,  it 
might  never  have  been  intended  that  this  letter  should 
form  a  constituent  part  of  the  Canon  ;  for  although  it 
treated  of  subjects  connected  with  Christian  faith  or 
practice,  yet,  an  occasion  having  arisen,  in  a  short 
time,  of  treating  these  subjects  more  at  large,  every 
thing  in  that  epistle,  (supposing  it  ever  to  have  been 
written,)  may  have  been  included  in  the  two  epistles 


260  NO    CANONICAL   BOOK 

to  the  Corintlilans  which  are  now  in  the  Canon.  Or, 
to  adopt  for  illustration,  the  ingenious  hypothesis  of 
Dr.  Lightfoot,  the  epistle  referred  to,  which  was  sent 
by  Timothy,  who  took  a  circuitous  route  through 
Macedonia,  might  not  have  reached  them  until  Paul 
wrote  the  long  and  interesting  epistle  called  the  first 
to  the  Corinthians,  and  thus  the  former  one  would 
be  superseded.  But  we  adduce  this  case  merely  for 
illustration,  for  we  will  attempt  presently  to  show 
that  no  evidence  exists  that  any  such  epistle  was  ever 
written. 

1.  The  first  argument  to  prove  that  no  canonical 
book  has  been  lost,  is  derived  from  the  watchful  care 
of  Providence  over  the  sacred  Scriptures. 

Now,  to  suppose  that  a  book  written  by  the  inspira- 
tion of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  intended  to  form  a  part 
of  the  Canon,  which  is  the  rule  of  faith  to  the  church, 
should  be  utterly  and  irrecoverably  lost,  is  surely  not 
very  honourable  to  the  wisdom  of  God,  and  no  way 
consonant  with  the  ordinary  method  of  his  dispensa- 
tions in  regard  to  his  precious  truth.  There  is  good 
reason  to  think  that  if  God  saw  it  needful,  and  for 
the  edification  of  the  church,  that  such  books  should 
be  written  under  the  inspiration  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
])y  his  providence  he  would  have  taken  care  to  pre- 
serve them  from  destruction.  We  do  know  that  tliis 
treasure  of  divine  truth  has  been  in  all  ages,  and  in 
the  worst  times,  the  special  care  of  God,  or  not  one 
of  the  sacred  books  would  now  be  in  existence.  And 
if  one  canonical  book  might  be  lost  through  the  negli- 
gence or  unfaithfulness  of  men,  why  not  all  ?  And 
thus  the  end  of  God  in  making  a  revelation  of  his  will 
might  have  been  defeated. 


HAS   BEEN   LOST.  261 

But  whatever  other  corruptions  have  crept  into  the 
Jewish  or  Christian  churches,  it  does  not  appear  that 
either  of  them,  as  a  body,  ever  incurred  the  cen- 
sure of  having  been  careless  in  preserving  the  oracles 
of  God.  Our  Saviour  never  charges  the  Jews,  who 
perverted  the  sacred  Scriptures  to  their  own  ruin, 
with  having  lost  any  portion  of  the  sacred  deposit 
intrusted  to  them. 

History  informs  us  of  the  fierce  and  malignant  de- 
sign of  Antiochus  Epiphanes  to  abolish  every  vestige 
of  the  sacred  volume ;  but  the  same  history  assures  us 
that  the  Jewish  people  manifested  a  heroic  fortitude 
and  invincible  patience  in  resisting  and  defeating  his 
impious  purpose.  They  chose  rather  to  sacrifice 
their  lives,  and  sufi'er  a  cruel  death,  than  to  deliver 
up  the  copies  of  the  sacred  volume  in  their  possession. 
And  the  same  spirit  was  manifested,  and  with  the 
same  result,  in  the  Dioclesian  persecution  of  the 
Christians.  Every  effort  was  made  to  obliterate  the 
sacred  writings  of  Christians,  and  multitudes  suffered 
death  for  refusing  to  deliver  up  the  New  Testament. 
Some,  indeed,  overcome  by  the  terrors  of  a  cruel 
persecution  did,  in  the  hour  of  temptation,  consent 
to  surrender  the  holy  book  ;  but  they  were  ever  after- 
wards called  traitors;  and  it  was  with  the  utmost 
difficulty  that  any  of  them  could  be  received  again 
into  the  communion  of  the  church  after  a  long  repent- 
ance, and  the  most  humbling  confessions  of  their  fault. 
Now,  if  any  canonical  book  was  ever  lost,  it  must  have 
been  in  these  early  times  when  the  word  of  God  was 
valued  far  above  life,  and  when  every  Christian  stood 
ready  to  seal  the  truth  with  his  blood. 

2.  Another  argument  which  appears  to  me  to  be 


262  NO   CANONICAL   BOOK 

convincing  is,  that  in  a  little  time  all  the  sacred 
books  were  dispersed  over  the  whole  world.  If  a 
book  had,  by  some  accident  or  violence,  been  destroyed 
in  one  region,  the  loss  could  soon  have  been  repaired  by 
sending  for  copies  to  other  countries. 

The  considerations  just  mentioned  would,  I  pre- 
sume, be  satisfactory  to  all  candid  minds,  were  it  not 
that  it  is  supposed,  that  there  is  evidence  that  some 
things  were  written  by  the  apostles  which  are  not 
now  in  the  Canon.  ^Ye  have  already  referred  to  an 
epistle  to  the  Corinthians  which  Paul  is  supposed  to 
have  written  to  them  previously  to  the  writing  of 
those  which  we  now  possess.  But  it  is  by  no  means 
certain,  or  even  probable,  that  Paul  ever  did  write 
such  an  epistle ;  for  not  one  ancient  writer  makes  the 
least  mention  of  any  such  letter ;  nor  is  there  any 
where  to  be  found  any  citation  from  it,  or  any  refer- 
ence to  it.  It  is  a  matter  of  testimony  in  which  all 
the  Fathers  concur,  as  with  one  voice,  that  Paul  wrote 
no  more  than  fourteen  epistles,  all  of  which  we  now 
have. 

The  testimony  of  Clement  of  Rome  is  clear  on  this 
subject ;  and  he  was  the  friend  and  companion  of 
Paul,  and  must  have  known  which  was  the  first 
epistle  addressed  by  him  to  the  Corinthian  church. 
He  says,  in  a  passage  before  cited,  ^'  Take  again  tlie 
epistle  of  the  blessed  apostle  Paul  into  your  hands. 
>Vliat  was  it  that  he  first  ivrote  to  you,  in  the  begin- 
ning of  his  epistle  ?  He  did  truly  by  the  Spirit  write 
to  you  concerning  himself,  and  Cephas,  and  Apollos, 
because  even  at  that  time  you  were  formed  into 
divisions  or  parties." 

The  only  objection  which  can  be  conceived  to  this 


OF  THE   NEW  TESTAMENT   LOST.  263 

testimony  is,  that  Clement's  words,  when  literally 
translated,  read,  "  Take  again  the  gospel  (froyy^xtov) 
of  the  blessed  apostle  Paul;"  but  it  is  well  known 
that  the  early  Fathers  called  any  book  containing 
the  doctrines  of  Christ  the  gospel;  and  in  this  case, 
all  reasonable  doubt  is  precluded,  because  Clement 
identifies  the  writing  to  which  he  referred,  by  men- 
tioning some  of  its  contents,  which  are  found  in  the 
first  epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  and  no  where  else. 

But  still,  Paul's  own  declaration,  stands  in  the  way  of 
our  opinion,  "  I  wrote  to  you  in  an  epistle."  1  Cor.  v.  9, 11. 
The  words  in  the  original  are,  Eypa^a  i-ixiv  sv  trj  eTtiato^yj^ 
the  literal  version  of  which  is,  "I  have  written  to  you 
in  the  epistle,  or  in  this  epistle;"  that  is,  in  the  for- 
mer part  of  it ;  where  in  fact  we  find  the  very  thing 
which  he  says  that  he  had  written.  See  v.  2,  5,  6,  of 
this  same  fifth  chapter.  But  it  is  thought  by  learned 
and  judicious  commentators,  that  the  words  following, 
^vvL  6f  iypa-\.a  vfiLv  "  but  uow  I  havc  Written  unto  you," 
require  that  we  should  understand  the  former  clause 
as  relating  to  some  former  time ;  but  a  careful  atten- 
tion to  the  context  will  convince  us  that  this  refer- 
ence is  by  no  means  necessary.  The  apostle  had  told 
them,  in  the  beginning  of  the  chapter,  to  avoid  the 
company  of  fornicators,  &c.  ;  but  it  is  manifest,  from 
the  tenth  verse,  that  he  apprehended  that  his  mean- 
ing might  be  misunderstood,  by  extending  the  prohi- 
bition too  far,  so  as  to  decline  all  intercourse  with  the 
world,  therefore  he  repeats  what  he  had  said,  and  in- 
forms them,  that  it  had  relation  only  to  the  professors 
of  Christianity,  who  should  be  guilty  of  such  vices. 
The  whole  may  be  thus  paraphrased:  "  I  wrote  to  you 
above,  in  my  letter,  that  you  should  separate  from 


264  NO   CANONICAL   BOOK 

those  wlio  were  fornicators,  and  that  you  should 
purge  them  out  as  old  leaven ;  but  fearing  lest  you 
should  misapprehend  my  meaning,  by  inferring  that  I 
have  directed  you  to  avoid  all  intercourse  with  the 
heathen  around  you,  who  are  addicted  to  these  shame- 
ful vices,  which  would  make  it  necessary  that  you 
should  go  out  of  the  world,  I  now  inform  you  that  my 
meaning  is,  that  you  do  not  associate  familiarly  with 
any  who  make  a  profession  of  Christianity,  and  yet 
continue  in  these  evil  practices." 

In  confirmation  of  this  interpretation  we  can  ad- 
duce the  old  Syriac  version,  which  having  been 
made  soon  after  the  days  of  the  apostles,  is  good  tes- 
timony in  relation  to  this  matter  of  fact.  In  this  ve- 
nerable version,  the  meaning  of  the  11th  verse  is  thus 
given,  "This  is  what  I  have  written  unto  you,"  or, 
"  The  meaning  of  what  I  have  written  unto  you."* 
Dr.  Whitby  understands  this  passage  in  a  way  dif- 
ferent from  any  that  has  been  mentioned ;  the  reader 
is  referred  to  his  commentary  on  the  place.  And  we 
have  before  mentioned  the  ingenious  conjecture  of  Dr. 
Lightfoot,  to  which  there  is  no  objection,  except  that 
it  is  totally  unsupported  by  evidence. 

It  deserves  to  be  mentioned  here,  that  there  is  now 
extant  a  letter  from  Paul  to  the  Corinthians,  distinct 
from  those  epistles  of  liis  wliich  we  have  in  tlie  Ca- 
non ;  and  also  an  epistle  from  the  church  of  Corinth 
to  Paul.  These  epistles  are  in  the  Armenian  lan- 
guage, but  h<%ve  been  translated  into  Latin.  The 
epistle  ascribed  to  Paul  is  very  short,  and  undoubt- 
edly spurious.  It  contains  no  prohibitions  relative  to 
keeping  company  with  fornicators.  It  was  never 
*  See  Jones  on  the  Canon,  vol.  i.  pp.  139,  140. 


OF  THE   NEW  TESTAMENT   LOST.  265 

cited  hj  any  of  the  early  writers,  nor  indeed  heard 
of  until  within  a  century  past.  It  contains  some  un- 
sound opinions  concerning  the  speedy  appearance  of 
Christ,  which  Paul,  in  some  of  his  epistles,  took  pains 
to  contradict.  The  manner  of  salutation  is  very  dif- 
ferent from  that  of  Paul ;  and  this  apostle  is  made  to 
declare,  that  he  had  received  what  he  taught  them 
from  the  former  apostles,  which  is  contrary  to  his  re- 
peated solemn  asseverations  in  several  of  his  epistles. 
In  regard  to  the  epistle  under  the  name  of  the  church 
of  Corinth,  it  does  not  properly  fall  under  our  consid- 
eration, for  though  it  were  genuine  it  would  have  no  claim 
to  a  place  in  the  Canon.  The  curious  reader  will  find 
a  literal  translation  of  both  these  epistles  in  Jones'a 
''New  Method  of  settling  the  Canon."* 

The  only  other  passage  in  the  New  Testament, 
which  has  been  thought  to  refer  to  an  epistle  of  Paul 
not  now  extant  is  that  in  Col.  iv.  16.  "  And  when 
this  epistle  is  read  among  you,  cause  also  that  it  be 
read  in  the  church  of  the  Laodiceans,  and  that  ye  like- 
wise read  the  epistle  from  Laodicea." 

Now,  there  is  clear  evidence,  that  so  early  as  the 
beginning  of  the  second  century  there  existed  an 
epistle  under  this  title ;  but  it  was  not  received  by  the 
church,  but  was  in  the  hands  of  Marcion,  who  was  a 
famous  forger  and  corrupter  of  sacred  books.  He 
was  contemporary  with  Polycarp,  and  therefore  very 
near  to  the  times  of  the  apostles,  but  was  stigmatized 
as  an  enemy  of  the  truth ;  for  he  had  the  audacity  to 
form  a  gospel,  according  to  his  own  mind,  which 
went  by  his  name ;  and  also  an  apostolicon,  which 
contained  only  ten  of  Paul's  epistles ;  and  these  altered 
*  Vol.  i.  p.  14, 
23 


2G6  NO   CAXOXICAL   BOOK 


aiK 


1  accommodated  to  liis  own  notions.  These, 
according  to  Epiplianius,  were,  "  The  epistle  to  the 
Galatians,  the  two  to  the  Corinthians,  to  the  Romans, 
the  two  to  the  Thessalonians,  to  the  Colossians,  to  Phil- 
emon, and  to  the  Philippians. — And,"  says  he,  "  he 
takes  in  some  part  of  that  which  is  called  '  the  epis- 
tle to  the  Laodiceans,'  and  this  he  styles  the  ele- 
venth of  those  received  by  Marcion." 

Tertullian,  hoAvever,  gives  a  very  different  account 
of  this  matter.  He  asserts,  "  that  Marcion  and  his 
followers  called  that  the  epistle  to  the  Laodiceans, 
■which  was  the  epistle  to  the  Ephesians  :  which  epis- 
tle," says  he,  "  we  are  assm-ed,  by  the  testimony  of  the 
church,  was  sent  to  the  Ephesians,  and  not  to  the 
Laodiceans ;  though  Marcion  has  taken  upon  him 
falsely  to  prefix  that  title  to  it,  pretending  therein  to 
have  made  some  notable  discovery."  And  again, 
*'  I  shall  say  nothing  now  of  that  other  epistle,  which 
we  have  inscribed  to  the  Ephesians,  but  the  heretics 
entitle  it  'to  the  Laodiceans.'  " 

This  opinion,  which,  by  Tertullian,  is  ascribed  to 
Marcion,  respecting  the  true  title  of  the  epistle  to  the 
Ephesians,  has  been  adopted,  and  ingeniously  de- 
fended by  several  distinguished  moderns,  as  Grotius, 
Hammond,  Whitby,  and  Paley.  They  rely  princi- 
pally on  internal  evidence  ;  for  unless  Marcion  be  ac- 
cepted as  a  witness,  I  do  not  recollect  that  any  of  the 
early  writers  can  be  quoted  in  favour  of  that  opinion  ; 
but  in  the  course  of  this  work,  we  have  put  down  tlie 
express  testimony  of  some  of  the  most  respectable 
and  learned  of  the  Fathers,  on  the  other  side  ;  and  all 
those  passages  in  the  epistle  wliich  seem  inconsistent 
with  its  being  addressed  to  the  Epliesians,  and  neigh- 


OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  LOST.       267 

"bouring  cliurclies  of  Asia,  can  easily  be  explained. — 
See  Lardner  and  Macknight. 

But  there  is  also  an  epistle  to  the  Laodiceans,  now 
extant,  against  which  nothing  can  be  said,  except 
that  almost  everything  contained  in  it  is  taken  out  of 
Paul's  other  epistles,  so  that  if  it  should  be  received, 
we  add  nothing  in  reality  to  the  Canon ;  and  if  it 
should  be  rejected,  we  lose  nothing.  The  reader  may 
find  a  translation  of  this  epistle  inserted  in  the  notes 
at  the  end  of  the  volume.* 

But  what  evidence  is  there  that  Paul  ever  wrote 
an  epistle  to  the  Laodiceans  ?  The  text  on  which  this 
opinion  has  been  founded,  in  ancient  and  modern 
times,  correctly  interpreted,  has  no  such  import. 
The  words  in  the  original  are,  xav  trjv  sx  AooStxaa?  Iva 
xaL  vfisi^  avayvu^t?.  "  And  that  ye  likewise  read  the 
epistle  from  Laodicea."  Col.  iv.  16.  These  words 
have  been  differently  understood ;  for  by  them  some 
understand,  that  an  epistle  had  been  written  by  Paul 
to  the  Laodiceans,  which  he  desii'ed  might  be  read  in 
the  church  at  Colosse.  Chrysostom  seems  to  have 
understood  them  thus;  and  the  Bomish  writers,  al- 
most universally  have  adopted  this  opinion.  "  There- 
fore," says  Bellarmine,  "it  is  certain  that  Paul's 
epistle  to  the  Laodiceans  is  now  lost."  And  their 
opinion  is  favoured  by  the  Latin  Vulgate,  where  we 
read,  Eamque  Laodicensium — that  which  is  of  the 
Laodiceans ;  but  even  these  words  admit  of  another 
construction. 

Many  learned  Protestants,  also,  have  embraced  the 
same  interpretation ;  while  others  suppose  that  Paul 
here  refers  to  the  epistle  to  the  Ephesians,  which  they 
*  See  note  G. 


268  NO   CANONICAL   BOOK 

think  lie  sent  to  the  Laodiceans,  and  that  the  present 
inscription  is  spurious.  But  that  neither  of  these  opi- 
nions is  correct  may  be  rendered  very  probable.  In 
regard  to  the  latter,  we  have  alreadv  said  as  much  as 
is  necessary ;  and  that  Paul  could  not  intend  by  the 
language  used  in  the  passage  under  consideration  an 
epistle  written  by  himself,  will  appear  by  the  follow- 
ing arguments. 

1.  Paul  could  not  with  any  propriety  of  speech 
have  called  an  epistle  written  by  himself,  and  sent  to 
the  Laodiceans,  an  epistle  from  Laodicea.  He  cer- 
tainly would  have  said,  ytpo?  AooScxftav,  or  some  such 
thing.  Who  ever  heard  of  an  epistle  addressed  to 
any  individual,  or  to  any  society,  denominated  an 
epistle  from  them  ? 

2.  If  the  epistle  referred  to  in  this  passage  had 
been  one  written  by  Paul,  it  would  have  been  most 
natural  for  him  to  call  it  his  epistle,  and  this  would 
have  rendered  his  meaning  incapable  of  misconstruc- 
tion. 

3.  All  those  best  qualified  to  judge  of  the  fact, 
and  who  were  well  acquainted  with  Paul's  history 
and  writings,  never  mention  any  such  epistle :  neither 
Clement,  Hernias,  nor  the  Syriac  interpreter,  knew 
anything  of  such  an  epistle  of  Paul ;  and  no  one 
seems  to  have  had  knowledge  of  any  such  writing, 
except  Marcion,  who  probably  forged  it  to  answer 
his  own  purposes.  But  whether  Marcion  did  ac- 
knowledge an  epistle  different  from  all  that  we  have 
in  the  Canon,  rests  on  the  authority  of  Epiphanius, 
who  wrote  a  criticism  on  the  apostolicon  of  Mar- 
cion ;  but  as  we  have  seen,  Tertullian  tells  us  a  dif- 
ferent story.      It  is   of  little  importance   to  decide 


OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT   LOST.  269 

wliich  of  these  testimonies  is  most  credible :  for  Mar- 
cion's  authority,  at  best,  is  worthless  on  such  a  sub- 
ject. 

But  it  may  be  asked,  To  what  epistle  then  does 
Paul  refer  ?  To  this  inquiry  various  answers  have 
been  given,  and  perhaps  nothing  determinate  can 
now  be  said.  Theophylact  was  of  opinion,  that  Paul's 
first  epistle  to  Timothy  was  here  intended.  But 
this  is  not  probable.  Dr.  Lightfoot  conjectures  that 
it  was  the  first  epistle  of  John,  which  he  supposes 
was  written  from  Laodicea.  Others  have  thought 
that  it  was  the  epistle  of  Paul  to  Philemon.  But  it 
seems  safest,  in  such  a  case,  where  testimony  is  de- 
ficient, to  follow  the  literal  sense  of  the  words,  and 
to  believe  that  it  was  an  epistle  written  by  the  Lao- 
diceans,  probably  to  himself,  which  he  had  sent  to 
the  Colossians,  together  with  his  own  epistle,  for  their 
perusal. 

That  the  epistle  which  is  now  extant  is  not  the 
same  as  that  which  formerly  existed,  at  least  as  early 
as  the  fourth  century,  is  evident  from  the  quotations 
from  the  ancient  epistle,  by  Epiphanius  ;  for  no  such 
words  as  he  cites  are  in  that  now  extant.  But  can- 
dour requires  that  it  be  mentioned  that  they  are  con- 
tained in  the  epistle  to  the  Ephesians.  Let  this  weigh 
as  much  as  it  is  worth  in  favour  of  the  opinion,  that 
the  apostle,  in  the  passage  under  consideration,  refers 
to  the  epistle  to  the  Ephesians.  This  opinion,  how- 
ever, is  perfectly  consistent  with  our  position,  that  no 
canonical  hooh  of  the  New  Testament  has  been  lost. 
This  proposition,  we  hope,  will  now  appear  to  the 
reader  sufiiciently  established. 
23* 


RULES   FOR   DETERMINING 


SECTION  XV. 


EULES    FOR    DETERMINING  WHAT    BOOKS    ARE  APOCRYPHAL 

SOME    ACCOUNT    OF    THE    APOCRYPHAL    BOOKS    WHICH 

HAVE    BEEN    LOST ALL    OF    THEM    CONDEMNED    BY  THE 

FOREGOING  RULES REASON  OF  THE  ABOUNDING  OF  SUCH 

BOOKS. 

Of  the  apocryphal  books  of  the  New  Testament,  the 
greater  part  have  long  since  sunk  into  oblivion,  but  a 
few  of  them  are  still  extant.  All  of  them  can  be 
proved  to  be  spurious,  or  at  least  not  canonical.  Their 
claims  have  so  little  to  support  them,  that  they  might 
be  left  to  that  oblivion,  into  which  they  have  so  gene- 
rally fallen,  were  it  not  that,  from  time  to  time,  per- 
sons unfriendly  to  our  present  Canon  bring  forward 
these  books,  and  pretend  that  some  of  them,  at  least, 
have  as  good  claim.s  to  canonical  authority  as  those 
which  are  received.  It  will  be  satisfactory  to  the 
reader,  therefore,  to  know  the  names  of  these  books, 
and  to  understand  the  principles  on  which  they  have 
been  uniformly  rejected  by  the  church. 

In  the  first  place,  then,  I  will  mention  the  rules 
laid  down  by  the  Rev.  Jeremiah  Jones,  by  which  it 
may  be  determined  that  a  book  is  apocryphal,  and 
then  I  will  give  some  account  of  the  books  of  this 
class  which  have  been  lost ;  and  finally,  consider  the 
character  of  those  which  are  still  extant. 


WHAT    BOOKS   ARE  APOCKYPHAL.  271 

1.  That  book  is  certainly  apocryphal  which  con- 
tains manifest  contradictions. 

The  reason  of  this  rule  is  too  evident  to  need  any 
elucidation. 

2.  That  book  is  apocryphal,  which  contains  any 
doctrine  or  history,  plainly  contrary  to  those  which 
are  certainly  known  to  be  true. 

This  rule  is  also  too  clear  to  require  anything  to 
be  said  in  confirmation  of  its  propriety. 

3.  That  book  is  apocryphal  which  contains  any- 
thing ludicrous  or  trifling,  or  which  abounds  in  silly 
and  fabulous  stories. 

This  rule  is  not  only  true,  but  of  great  importance, 
in  this  inquiry ;  as  on  examination  it  will  be  found, 
that  the  largest  part  of  apocryphal  books  may  be 
detected  by  the  application  of  this  single  rule. 

4.  That  book  is  apocryphal  which  mentions  things 
of  a  date  much  later  than  the  time  in  which  the  au- 
thor, under  whose  name  it  goes,  lived. 

This  rule  does  not  apply  to  predictions  of  future 
events,  which  events  occurred  long  after  the  death  of 
the  prophet ;  but  to  a  reference  to  facts,  or  names  of 
places,  or  persons,  as  existing  when  the  book  was 
written,  which  are  known  to  have  existed,  only  at  a 
period  long  since  the  time  when  the  supposed  author 
lived.  The  rule  will  be  better  understood,  if  illus- 
trated by  particular  examples.  The  book  entitled, 
*' The  Constitutions  of  the  Apostles,"  speaks  of  the 
controversy  which  arose  in  the  third  century,  respect- 
ing the  rebaptization  of  heretics,  therefore,  it  is  not 
the  work  of  Clement  of  Rome,  to  whom  it  has  been 
ascribed ;  nor  was  it  written  in  his  time,  but  long 
afterwards. 


272  RULES   FOR   DETERMINING 

Again,  the  book  under  the  name  of  Hegesippus  is 
not  genuine,  for  it  mentions  Gonstantine  and  Constan- 
tinople, which  had  no  existence  until  long  after  the 
death  of  Hegesippus. 

Moreover,  in  "  The  Constitutions  of  the  Apostles," 
there  is  mention  of  rites  and  ceremonies,  relative  to 
baptism,  fasting,  celibacy,  &c.  which  it  is  certain  had 
no  existence  in  the  times  of  the  apostles,  therefore 
this  book  was  not  written  by  an  apostolical  man,  nor 
in  the  days  of  the  apostles,  but  centuries  afterwards. 

5.  That  book  is  apocryphal,  the  style  of  Avhich  is 
entirely  different  from  the  known  style  of  the  author 
to  whom  it  is  ascribed. 

It  is  easy  to  counterfeit  an  author's  name,  age, 
country,  opinions,  &c. ;  but  it  will  be  found  almost 
impossible  to  imitate  his  style.  An  author,  it  is  true, 
may  vary  his  style  to  suit  different  subjects,  but  there 
is  commonly  some  peculiarity  by  which  he  may  be 
distinguished  from  all  others.  "  Jerome,"  says  Six- 
tus,  "  writes  one  way  in  his  epistles,  another  in  his 
controversies,  a  third  in  his  commentaries ; — one  way 
w^hen  young,  another  Avhcn  old,  yet  he  always  so 
"writes  that  you  may  know  him  to  be  the  same  Je- 
rome still,  as  a  man  knows  his  friend  under  all  the 
various  casts  and  turns  of  his  countenance."  Thus 
Augustine  says  of  Cyprian,  "  His  style  has  a  certain 
peculiar  face  by  which  it  may  be  known." 

It  should  be  remembered,  however,  that  tliis  rule, 
although  it  may  often  furnish  a  certain  detection  of 
spurious  writings  is  one  which  requires  much  caution 
in  the  application.  There  is  need  of  a  long  and  inti- 
mate acquaintance  with  the  style  of  an  author,  before 
"vve  are  competent  to  determine  whether  a  book  could 


■WHAT    BOOKS   ARE  APOCRYPHAL.  273 

have  been  written  by  him :  and  the  difference  ought 
to  be  very  distinctly  marked  before  we  make  it  the 
ground  of  any  important  judgment,  respecting  the 
genuineness  of  a  work  ascribed  to  him,  especially  if 
there  be  external  evidence  in  its  favour.  In  fact,  too 
free  an  application  of  this  rule  has  led  to  many  errors, 
both  in  ancient  and  modern  times. 

6.  That  book  is  spurious  and  apocryphal,  w^hose 
idiom  and  dialect  are  different  from  those  of  the  coun- 
try to  which  the  reputed  author  belonged. 

The  idiom  and  dialect  of  a  language  are  very  dif- 
ferent from  the  style  of  an  author.  Every  language 
is  susceptible  of  every  variety  of  style,  but  the  idiom 
is  the  same  in  all  who  use  the  language :  it  is  the 
peculiarity,  not  of  an  individual,  but  of  a  whole  coun- 
try. But  as  every  writer  has  a  style  of  his  own, 
which  cannot  easily  be  imitated  by  another,  so  every 
country  has  an  idiom,  which  other  nations,  even  if  they 
learn  the  language,  cannot,  without  great  difficulty, 
acquire.  And  for  the  same  reason  that  a  writer  can- 
not acquire  the  idiom  of  a  foreign  tongue,  he  cannot 
divest  himself  of  the  peculiarites  of  his  own. 

An  Englishman  can  scarcely  write  and  speak  the 
French  language,  so  as  not  to  discover  by  his  idiom 
that  it  is  not  his  vernacular  tongue.  Hence  also,  a 
North  Briton  can  be  distinguished,  not  only  from  the 
peculiarity  of  his  pronunciation,  but  by  his  idiom. 
And  this  is  the  reason  that  modern  scholars  can 
never  write  Latin,  in  the  manner  of  the  classic  au- 
thors. This  rule,  therefore,  is  of  great  importance  in 
detecting  the  spuriousness  of  a  book,  when  the  real 
author  lived  after  the  time  of  the  person  whose  name 
is  assumed,  or  in  a  country  where  a  different  language, 


274  RULES   FOR   DETERMININa 

or  a  diflfercnt  dialect  Tvas  in  use.  It  will  be  found  al- 
most impossible  to  avoid  phrases  and  modes  of  speech, 
which  were  not  in  use  in  the  time  of  the  person  under 
whose  name  the  work  is  edited :  and  the  attempt  at 
imitating  an  idiom  which  is  not  perfectly  familiar, 
leads  to  an  affectation  and  stiffness  of  manner  which 
usually  betrays  the  impostor.  The  influence  of  native 
idiom  appears  nowhere  more  remarkably  than  in  the 
writings  of  the  New  Testament.  These  books,  al- 
though written  in  the  Greek  tongue,  contain  an  idiom 
80  manifestly  different  from  that  of  the  language  in 
common  use  at  that  time,  that  it  cannot  but  be 
observed  by  all  who  have  even  a  superficial  acquaint- 
ance with  Grecian  literature. 

The  fact  is,  as  has  often  been  observed  by  learned 
men,  that  while  the  words  of  these  books  are  Greek 
the  idiom  is  Hebrew.  The  writers  had,  from  their 
infancy,  been  accustomed  to  the  Syro-Chaldaic  lan- 
guage, which  is  a  corruption  of  the  ancient  Hebrew. 
Now,  this  peculiarity  of  idiom  could  never  have 
been  successfully  imitated  by  any  native  Greek ;  nor 
by  any  one,  not  early  conversant  with  the  vernacular 
tongue  of  Palestine  at  that  time.  When,  therefore, 
men  of  other  countries,  and  other  times,  undertook 
to  publish  books  under  the  name  of  the  apostles,  the 
imposture  was  manifest  at  once,  to  all  capable  of 
judging  correctly  on  the  subject;  because,  although 
they  could  write  in  the  same  language  as  the  apos- 
tles, they  could  not  possibly  imitate  their  idiom.  This, 
therefore,  furnishes  a  most  important  characteristic, 
to  distinguish  between  the  genuine  writings  of  the 
apostles  and  such  as  are  supposititious. 

7.  That  book  is  spurious  which  exhibits  a  disposi- 


WHAT   BOOKS   ARE   APOCRYPHAL.  275 

tion  and  teinDer  of  mind  very  different  from  that  of 
the  person  to  whom  it  is  ascribed. 

This  rule  depends  on  a  principle  in  human  nature 
well  understood,  and  needs  no  particular  elucidation. 

8.  That  book  is  not  genuine,  which  consists  princi- 
pally of  mere  extracts  from  other  books. 

This  is  also  so  evident,  that  it  requires  no  illustra- 
tion. 

9.  Those  books  which  were  never  cited,  nor  referred 
to  as  Scripture,  by  any  writer  of  credit  for  the  first 
four  hundred  years  after  the  apostles'  days,  are  apo- 
cr^^phal. 

10.  Those  books  which  were  expressly  rejected  by 
the  Fathers  of  the  first  ages  as  spurious,  and  attribu- 
ted by  them  to  heretics,  are  apocryphal. 

By  the  application  of  the  foregoing  rules,  it  can  be 
shown,  that  every  book  which  claims  canonical  au- 
thority, not  included  in  our  present  Canon,  is  apo- 
cryphal. When  we  denominate  all  books  apocryphal 
which  are  not  canonical,  we  do  not  mean  to  reduce 
them  all  to  the  same  level.  A  book  which  is  not 
canonical  may  be  a  very  instructive  and  useful  book. 
As  a  human  composition  it  may  deserve  to  be  highly 
esteemed ;  and  as  the  writing  of  a  pious  and  eminent 
man  of  antiquity  it  may  claim  peculiar  respect. 

The  ancient  method  of  division  was  more  accurate 
than  ours.  They  divided  all  books  into  three  classes ; 
first,  the  canonical ;  secondly,  the  ecclesiastical ; 
and  thirdly,  the  spurious.  And  there  is  reason  to 
believe  that  some  books  which  w^ere  written  without 
the  least  fraudulent  design,  by  anonymous  authors, 
have,  by  the  ignorance  of  their  successors,  been  as- 
cribed to  the  wrong  persons. 


276  APOCRYPHAL  BOOKS 

That  the  Fathers  did  sometimes  cite  apocryphal 
books,  in  their  writings,  is  true ;  but  so  did  Paul  cite 
the  heathen  poets.  If  these  books  are  sometimes 
mentioned,  without  any  note  of  disapprobation  an- 
nexed, it  can  commonly  be  clearly  ascertained  from 
other  places  in  the  same  author,  that  he  held  them  to 
be  apocryphal.  Thus  Origen,  in  one  place,  quotes 
''  the  gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews,"  without  any 
expression  of  disapprobation  ;  but  in  another  place  he 
rejects  it  as  spurious,  and  declares,  "  That  the  church 
receives  no  more  than  four  gospels." 

Sometimes  the  Fathers  cited  these  apocryphal 
books,  to  shoAv  that  their  knowledge  was  not  con- 
fined to  their  own  books,  and  that  they  did  not  reject 
others,  through  ignorance  of  their  contents.  Remark- 
ably to  this  purpose  are  the  words  of  Origen.  "  The 
church,"  says  he,  "receives  only  four  gospels:  here- 
tics have  many,  such  as  the  gospel  of  the  Egyptians, 
the  gospel  of  Thomas,  &c. :  these  we  read,  that  we 
may  not  seem  to  be  ignorant  to  tliose  who  think  they 
know  something  extraordinary,  if  they  are  acquaint- 
ed with  those  things  which  are  recorded  in  these 
books."  To  the  same  purpose  speaks  Ambrose;  for, 
having  mentioned  several  of  these  books,  he  says, 
"  We  read  these  that  they  may  not  be  read  by  others: 
we  read  them,  that  we  may  not  seem  ignorant ;  we 
read  them,  not  that  we  receive  them,  but  that  we  may 
reject  them  ;  and  may  know  wliat  those  things  are,  of 
which  they  make  such  a  boast."  In  some  instances, 
it  seems  probable  that  some  of  the  Fathers  took  pas- 
sages out  of  these  books,  because  they  were  acknow- 
ledged by  those  against  whom  they  were  writing ;   be- 


CITED   BY   THE   FATHEES.  277 

ing  wlllmg  to  dispute  with  them  on  their  own  princi- 
ples and  to  confute  them  hj  their  own  books. 

It  maj  perhaps  be  true  also,  that  one  or  two  of  the 
Fathers  cited  passages  from  these  books,  because 
they  contained  facts  not  recorded  in  the  canonical 
gospels.  The  apostle  John  informs  us  that  our  Lord 
performed  innumerable  miracles,  besides  those  which 
he  had  recorded  ;  "  The  which,  if  they  should  be  writ- 
ten every  one,  I  suppose  the  world  itself  could  not 
contain  the  books  which  should  be  written."  Now, 
some  tradition  of  some  of  these  things  would  undoubt- 
edly be  handed  down  as  low  as  to  the  second  century, 
and  might  find  its  way  into  some  of  the  apocryphal  gos- 
pels, and  might  be  cited  by  persons  who  did  not  be- 
lieve the  book  to  be  of  canonical  authority ;  just  as  we 
refer  to  any  profane  author  for  the  proof  of  such  facts 
as  are  credibly  related  by  them.  There  is,  at  least, 
one  example  of  this.  Jerome  refers  to  the  gospel  ac- 
cording to  the  Hebrews  for  a  fact ;  and  yet  he  most 
explicitly  rejects  this  book  as  apocryphal. 

The  only  books  which  were  ever  read  in  the 
churches,  besides  the  canonical,  were  a  few  written 
by  apostolical  men ;  which,  although  not  written  by 
a  plenary  inspiration,  were  the  genuine  writings  of 
the  persons  whose  names  they  bore,  and  were  pious 
productions,  and  tended  to  edification ;  such  as,  the 
"Epistle  of  Clement,"  the  "  Shepherd  of  Hermas,"  and 
the  "Epistle  of  Barnabas;"  but  no  spurious  books 
were  ever  read  in  the  churches. 

None  of  the  writings  falsely  ascribed  to  Christ  and 

his  apostles,  ever  acquired  so  much  authority,  as  to 

be  publicly  read  in  any  church,  as  far  as  we  know. 

Indeed,   although  the  apocryphal  books  of  the  New 

24 


278  CAUSES   OF   THE   WRITING 

Testament  were  very  numerous,  yet  tliey  did  not  ap- 
pear in  the  age  of  the  church  next  after  the  times  of 
the  apostles.  In  the  first  century  no  books  of  this  de- 
scription are  referred  to,  unless  we  suppose  that  Luke, 
in  the  beginning  of  his  gospel,  intends  to  speak  of 
such.  In  the  second  century  a  few  spurious  writings 
began  to  be  first  put  into  circulation,  as,  "  the  Gospel 
according  to  the  Hebrews;"  "the  Gospel  of  Truth," 
used  by  the  Valentinians  ;  "  the  Preaching  of  Peter  ;" 
"  the  Traditions  of  Matthias  ;"  "  the  Acts  of  Paul  and 
Thecla  :"  "  the  Gospel  of  Marcion  ;"  "  the  Revelation 
of  Cerinthus  ;"  and  a  few  others  of  less  note.  But  in 
the  third  century  the  number  of  apocryplial  books 
was  considerably  increased ;  and  in  the  fourth  and 
fifth  centuries  they  were  exceedingly  multiplied. 

If  it  be  inquired,  how  it  happened  that  so  many 
apocryphal  books  were  written,  it  may  confidently  be 
answered,  that  the  principal  cause  was  the  abound- 
ing of  heresies.  Almost  all  the  spurious  writings,  un- 
der the  names  of  the  apostles,  are  the  productions  of 
heretics,  as  we  learn  from  the  testimony  of  those  Fa- 
thers who  have  made  mention  of  them.  It  is  however 
true,  that  some  mistaken  well-meaning  people  thought 
that  they  could  add  honour  to  the  apostles,  or  contri- 
bute to  the  edification  of  the  church,  by  resorting  to 
(what  have  improperly  been  called)  pious  frauds. 
They  imagined,  also,  that  they  could  recommend 
Christianity  to  the  Gentiles,  by  inventing  stories, 
which  they  rashly  pretended  Avere  sayings  or  ac- 
tions of  Christ :  thus  adopting  the  pernicious  max- 
im, so  peremptorily  denounced  by  Paul,  "  that  wo 
may  do  evil  that  good  may  come  ;"  or  that  the  good- 
ness of  the  end  will  sanctify  the  badness  of  the  means. 


OF   APOCKYPHAL   BOOKS.  279 

Of  this  we  have  one  remarkable  example,  in  the  spu- 
rious book  still  extant,  entitled,  "  the  Acts  of  Paul  and 
Thecla,"  which  a  certain  Asiatic  presbyter  confessed 
that  he  had  forged,  and  assigned,  as  his  reason  for 
this  forgery,  that  he  wished  to  show  respect  to  Paul. 
But,  in  connection  with  this  fact,  we  have  satisfactory 
proof  of  the  vigilance  of  the  church,  in  guarding  the 
sacred  Canon  from  corruption ;  for  the  book  was  no 
sooner  published,  than  a  strict  inquiry  w^as  instituted 
into  its  origin,  and  the  presbyter  mentioned  above, 
having  been  detected  as  the  author,  was  deprived  of 
his  office  in  the  church.  This  account  is  given  by 
Tertullian  ;  and  Jerome  adds  that  the  detection  of 
this  forgery  was  made  by  the  apostle  John. 

It  is  probable,  also,  that  some  of  these  books  were 
•written  without  any  evil  purpose,  by  weak  men,  who 
wrote  down  all  the  stories  they  had  received  by  tra- 
dition ;  for,  no  doubt,  a  multitude  of  traditions  respect- 
ing Christ  and  his  apostles,  with  extravagant  distor- 
tions and  additions,  would  be  handed  down  for  several 
generations. 

By  all  these  means,  the  number  of  apocryphal 
books  of  the  New  Testament  was  greatly  multiplied. 
But  by  far  the  greater  number  of  these  have  perished ; 
yet  there  is  no  difficulty  in  determining,  that  none 
of  them  had  any  just  claim  to  a  place  in  the  Canon. 
By  one  or  more  of  the  rules  laid  down  above,  they 
can  all  be  demonstrated  to  have  been  apocryphal : 
and  indeed  most  of  them  are  never  mentioned  by  any 
ancient  author,  in  any  other  light  than  as  spurious 
writings.  There  is  a  famous  decree  of  pope  Gela- 
Sius,  in  which  at  least  twenty-five  of  these  books  are 


280  DECREE   OF   GELASIUS. 

named,  and  declared  to  be  apocryphal.  It  is  not  cer- 
tain, indeed,  whether  this  decree  ought  to  be  ascribed 
to  Gelasius,  or  to  one  of  his  predecessors,  Damasus  ; 
bat  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  it  is  very  ancient.  It 
is  by  most  supposed  to  have  been  formed  in  the  coun- 
cil Avhich  met  at  Rome,  A.  D.  494.  A  translation  of 
this  decree,  extracted  from  Jones,  will  be  found  in  the 
notes  at  the  end  of  the  volume.* 

*  See  Note  F. 


LETTER   OF  ABGARUS.  281 


SECTION  XVI, 


APOCRYPHAL  BOOKS  WHICH  ARE  STILL  EXTANT — ^LETTER 
OF  ABGARUS  KING  OF  EDESSA  TO  JESUS,  AND  HIS  AN- 
SWER  EPISTLE    TO    THE  LAODTCEANS LETTERS  OF  PAUL 

TO    SENECA PROTEA^ANGELION    OF    JAMES THE    GOS- 
PEL   OF  OUR    saviour's    INFANCY THE  ACTS  OF   PILATE 

THE   ACTS    OF   PAUL   AND  THECLA. 

We  come  now  to  consider  those  apocryphal  books 
which  are  still  extant,  and  concerning  which,  there- 
fore, we  can  speak  more  particularly. 

The  first  of  these  is,  "  the  letter  of  Abgarus,  king 
of  Edessa,  addressed  to  Jesus,  and  sent  by  his  footman 
Ananias." 

EusEBius  is  the  first  who  makes  mention  of  this 
epistle,  and  the  sum  of  his  account  is,  that  our  Sa- 
viour's miraculous  works  drew  innumerable  persons 
to  him,  from  the  most  remote  countries,  to  be  healed 
of  their  diseases  ; — that  Abgarus,  a  famous  king  be- 
yond the  Euphrates,  wrote  to  him,  because  he  was 
afflicted  with  a  malady  incurable  by  human  art.  Our 
Lord  promised  to  send  one  of  his  disciples  to  him, 
and  Thaddeus,  one  of  the  seventy  disciples,  was  sent 
by  Thomas  after  the  ascension  of  Jesus,  by  an  inti- 
mation given  him  from  heaven.  For  the  truth  of  this 
story,  Eusebius  appeals  to  the  public  records  of  the 
city  of  Edessa,  where,  he  says,  all  the  transactions  of 


282  LETTER    OF   ABGARUS. 

the  reign  of  Abgarus  are  preserved  in  the  Syriac 
language ,  out  of  which  he  translated  these  epistles, 
and  the  accompanying  history.  He  proceeds  to  re- 
late that  Thaddeus  having  come  to  Edessa  wrought 
many  miracles,  and  healed  many  that  were  diseased. 
Abgarus,  supposing  that  this  was  the  person  whom 
Christ  had,  in  his  letter,  promised  to  send  to  him,  as 
soon  as  Thaddeus  was  introduced  to  him,  perceiving 
something  extraordinary  in  his  countenance,  fell  down 
before  him,  at  which  his  nobles  were  greatly  surprised. 
The  king  having  inquired  whether  he  was  the  person 
sent  by  Christ,  he  answered,  that  on  account  of  the 
faith  of  Christ  he  was  sent,  and  assured  him  that  all 
things  should  be  according  to  his  faith.  To  which  the 
king  replied,  that  he  believed  so  much  in  Christ,  that 
he  was  resolved,  had  it  not  been  for  fear  of  the  Ro- 
mans, to  have  made  war  with  the  Jews  for  crucify- 
ing him.  Thaddeus  informed  him  of  the  ascension  of 
Christ  to  his  Father.  The  king  replied,  I  believe  in 
him,  and  in  his  Father  also :  on  which  the  apostle 
said,  I  lay  my  hand  on  you  in  the  name  of  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ ;  and  the  king  was  instantly  cured  of  his 
disease.  He  also  cured  others  who  were  diseased ; 
and,  on  the  morrow,  the  king  ordered  all  the  city  to 
meet  together,  to  hear  the  apostle  preach.  The  king 
offered  him  gold  and  silver,  which  he  refused,  saying, 
^'  We  have  left  our  own,  and  should  we  take  that  which 
is  another's?" 

These  epistles  are  also  mentioned  by  Epiirem,  the 
Syrian,  who  was  a  deacon  in  the  church  of  Edessa, 
in  the  latter  end  of  the  fourth  century.  Ilis  account 
of  this  matter,  as  given  by  Dr.  Gvo.be,  is  as  follows: 
*'  Blessed  be  your   city,  and  mother   Edessa,    which 


LETTER    OF  ABGARUS.  283 

was  expressly  blessed  by  the  mouth  of  the  Lord,  and 
Ills  disciples,  but  our  apostles ;  for  when  Abgarus  the 
king,  who  built  that  city,  thought  fit  to  send  and  ac- 
knowledge Christ,  the  Lord  and  Saviour  of  all,  in 
his  pilgrimage  on  earth  ;  saying,  I  have  heard  all 
things  which  are  done  by  you,  and  how  much  you 
have  suffered  by  the  Jews,  who  contemn  you,  where- 
fore, come  hither,  and  take  up  your  residence  with 
me ;  I  have  a  little  city  which  shall  be  equally  yours 
and  mine ;  hereupon  the  Lord  admiring  his  faith 
sent  by  messengers  a  blessing  unto  the  city,  which 
should  abide  for  ever,  till  the  Holy  One  be  revealed 
from  heaven,  even  Jesus  Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  and 
God  of  God." 

No  other  writer  of  the  first  four  centuries  makes 
any  explicit  mention  of  this  epistle ;  but  Procopius, 
in  the  sixth  century,  in  his  history  of  the  Persian  war, 
relates,  "  That  Abgarus  had  been  long  afilicted  with 
the  gout,  and  finding  no  relief  from  the  physicians, 
but  hearing  of  the  miracles  of  Christ,  sent  to  him, 
and  desired  that  he  would  come  and  live  with  him ; 
and  that  upon  his  receiving  an  answer  from  Christ, 
he  was  immediately  cured ;  and  that  our  Saviour,  in 
the  end  of  his  letter,  gave  Abgarus  assurance,  that  his 
city  should  never  be  taken  by  enemies." 

EvAGRius,  in  the  latter  end  of  the  sixth  century, 
appeals  to  this  account  of  Procopius,  and  confirms 
the  story  that  the  city  never  should  be  taken  by  ene- 
mies, by  a  reference  to  some  facts,  particularly  the 
failure  of  Chosroes  to  take  the  city,  when  he  laid 
siege  to  it.  But  this  author  adds  a  circumstance, 
which  has  much  the  air  of  a  fable,  that  this  failure 
of  capturing  the  city  was  brought  about  by  a  picture 


284  LETTER    OF   CHRIST 

of  Christ's  face,  whicli  lie  had  impressed  on  a  hand 
kerchief,  and  sent  to  Abgarus,  at  his  earnest  request. 

Cedrenus  adds  to  all  the  rest  that  Christ  sealed 
his  letter  with  a  seal  consisting  of  seven  Hebrew  let- 
ters, the  meaning  of  which  was,  "the  divine  miracle  of 
God  is  seen." 

Among  the  moderns,  a  very  large  majority  are  of 
opinion  that  this  epistle  is  apocryphal.  Indeed,  the 
principal  advocates  of  its  genuineness  are  a  few 
learned  Englishmen,  particularly  Dr.  Parker,  Dr. 
Cave,  and  Dr.  Grabe,  but  they  do  not  speak  confi- 
dently on  the  subject ;  while  on  the  other  side  are 
found  almost  the  whole  body  of  learned  critics,  both 
Protestants  and  Romanists.  Now,  that  this  epistle 
and  history  existed  in  the  archives  of  Edessa  in  the 
time  of  Eusebius,  there  is  no  room  to  doubt,  unless 
"vve  would  accuse  this  respectable  historian  of  the 
most  deliberate  falsehood ;  for  he  asserts  that  he  him- 
self had  taken  them  thence.  His  words,  however, 
must  not  be  too  strictly  interpreted,  as  though  he  had 
himself  been  at  Edessa,  and  had  translated  the  epis- 
tle from  the  Syriac ;  for  there  is  reason  to  believe 
that  he  never  visited  that  place,  and  that  he  was  not 
acquainted  with  the  Syriac  tongue.  The  words  will 
be  sufficiently  verified,  if  this  document  was  trans- 
lated and  transmitted  to  him  through  an  authentic 
channel  from  Edessa. 

It  is  probable,  therefore,  that  this  story  has  some 
foundation  in  truth.  Probably  Thaddeus,  or  some 
other  apostle,  did  preach  the  gospel  and  perform 
miracles  in  that  city ;  but  how  much  of  the  story  is 
credible,  it  is  not  now  easy  to    determine.      But  I 


TO    ABGAEUS    SPUBIOUS.  285 

tlilnk  it  may  be  shown  that   this  epistle  was  never 
penned  by  Jesus  Christ,  for  the  following  reasons : 

1.  It  is  never  mentioned  in  the  genuine  gospels ; 
nor  referred  to  by  any  writer  of  the  first  three 
centuries. 

2.  If  this  account  had  been  true,  there  never  could 
have  been  any  hesitation  among  the  apostles  about 
preaching  the  gospel  to  the  Gentiles. 

3.  It  is  unreasonable  to  believe  that  if  Christ  had 
been  applied  to  by  this  king  for  healing,  he  would 
have  deferred  a  cure  until  he  could  send  an  apostle 
after  his  ascension.  This  does  not  correspond  with 
the  usual  conduct  of  the  benevolent  Saviour. 

4.  It  seems  to  have  been  a  tradition  universally  re- 
ceived that  Christ  never  wrote  anything  himself ;  and 
if  he  had  written  this  letter,  it  would  have  been  more 
prized  than  any  other  portion  of  Scripture,  and  would 
have  been  placed  in  the  Canon,  and  everywhere  read 
in  the  churches. 

5.  After  it  was  published  by  Eusebius,  it  never 
gained  so  much  credit  as  to  be  received  as  a  genuine 
writing  of  Christ.  As  it  was  unknown  in  the  first 
three  centuries,  so  in  the  fourth  when  published  it 
was  scarcely  noticed  by  any  wTiter. 

6.  The  plain  mention  of  our  Lord's  ascension  in 
the  epistle,  is  an  evidence  of  its  spuriousness ;  for  in 
all  his  discourses,  recorded  by  the  evangelists,  there 
is  no  such  explicit  declaration  of  this  event ;  and  it 
cannot  be  supposed  that  he  would  speak  more  expli- 
citly to  a  heathen  king  than  to  the  persons  chosen 
to  be  witnesses  of  his  actions,  and  dispensers  of  his 
doctrine. 

There  is,  however,  nothing  in  the  sentiments  ex- 


2SG  PAUL   TO   THE   LAODICEAXS. 

pressed  in  this  epistle  unsuitable  to  tlie  humble  and 
benevolent  character  of  the  Saviour ;  but  learned  men 
have  supposed  that  there  are  several  internal  evi- 
dences of  si3uriousness  besides  the  one  just  mentioned. 
I  conceive,  however,  that  the  reasons  already  assigned 
■will  be  considered  as  sufficient  to  prove  that  this  letter 
forms  no  part  of  the  sacred  Canon.  It  is  excluded 
by  several  of  the  rules  laid  down  above ;  and  even 
if  it  Avere  genuine,  it  seems  that  it  ought  rather  to  be 
received  as  a  private  communication  than  as  intended 
for  the  edification  of  the  whole  church.  The  history 
which  accompanies  the  letter  has  several  strong  marks 
of  spuriousness,  but  as  this  docs  not  claim  to  be  canoni- 
cal, we  need  not  pursue  the  subject  further.  It  may, 
however,  not  be  amiss  to  remark  that  the  story  of  the 
picture  of  our  Saviour  impressed  on  a  handkerchief 
and  sent  to  Abgarus,  is  enough  of  itself  to  condemn 
the  history  as  fabulous.  This  savours  not  of  the  sim- 
plicity of  Christ,  and  has  no  parallel  in  anything  re- 
corded in  the  gospel. 

II.  There  is  now  extant  an  epistle  under  the  title 
of  "Paul  to  the  Laodiccans,"  and  it  is  known  that  as 
early  as  the  beginning  of  tlie  second  century,  a  work 
existed  under  this  name  which  was  received  by  Mar- 
ciox  the  heretic.  But  there  is  good  reason  for  tliiiik- 
ing  that  the  epistle  now  extant  is  an  entirely  diflerent 
work  from  tlie  one  which  anciently  existed  ;  for  the 
present  epistle  does  not  contain  the  Avords  wliich 
E])iphanius  has  cited  from  that  used  by  Marcion; 
and  what  renders  this  clear  is,  tliat  the  ancient  epis- 
tle was  heretical,  and  was  rejected  by  the  Fathers  of 
the  church  with  one  consent ;  whereas,  the  one  which 
we  now  have  contains  nothing  erroneous  j   for  it  is  a 


PAUL'S  LETTERS  TO  SENECA.        287 

mere  compilation  from  the  other  epistles  of  Paul  with 
a  few  additional  sentences  which  contain  no  heretical 
doctrine.  As  the  epistle  is  short,  a  translation  of  it 
will  be  given  in  the  notes  at  the  end  of  the  volume.* 

Concerning  the  ancient  epistle  under  this  title  Phi- 
lastrius  says,  "That  some  were  of  opinion  that  it 
was  w^ritten  by  Luke  ;  but  because  the  heretics  have 
inserted  some  (false)  things,  it  is  for  that  reason  not 
read  in  the  churches.  Though  it  be  read  by  some, 
yet  there  are  no  more  than  thirteen  epistles  of  Paul 
read  to  the  people  in  the  church,  and  sometimes  that 
to  the  Hebrews."  "  There  are  some,"  says  Jerome, 
"  who  read  an  epistle,  under  the  name  of  Paul  to  the 
Laodiceans,  but  is  rejected  by  all."  And  Epiphanius 
calls  it  "  an  epistle  not  Avritten  by  the  apostles."  The 
epistle  now  extant  never  having  been  received  into 
the  ancient  catalogues,  read  in  the  churches,  or  cited 
as  Scripture,  is  of  course,  apocryphal.  It  is  also 
proved  not  to  be  genuine,  because  it  is  almost  entirely 
an  extract  from  the  other  epistles  of  Paul. 

III.  Another  writing  which  has  been  ascribed  to 
Paul  is,  "  Six  Letters  to  Seneca,"  with  which  are 
connected  "Eight  Letters  from  Seneca  to  Paul." 
These  letters  are  of  undoubted  antiquity,  and  several 
learned  men  of  the  Jesuits  have  defended  them  as 
genuine,  and  allege  that  they  are  similar  to  other 
epistles  received  into  the  Canon  which  were  addressed 
to  individuals.  That  such  letters  were  in  existence  as 
early  as  the  fourth  century  appears  from  a  passage 
in  Jerome's  Catalogue  of  Illustrious  Men,  where  he 
gives  the  following  account  of  Seneca :  "  Lucius  An- 
naius  Seneca,  born  at  Corduba,  a  disciple  of  Sotio,  a 
*  See  Note  G. 


288  PAUL'S    LETTERS 

Stoic,  uncle  of  Lncan  the  poet,  was  a  person  of  very 
extraordinary  temperance,  •whom  I  shoiihi  not  have 
ranked  in  my  Catalogue  of  Saints,  but  that  I  was  de- 
termined to  it  by  the  "  epistles  of  Paul  to  Seneca," 
and  "  Seneca  to  Paul,"  which  are  read  by  many.  In 
which,  though  he  was  at  that  time  tutor  to  Nero,  and 
made  a  very  considerable  figure,  he  saith  he  wishes 
to  be  of  the  same  repute  among  his  countrymen,  as 
Paul  was  among  the  Christians.  He  was  slain  by 
Nero  two  years  before  Peter  and  Paul  were  honoured 
with  martyrdom." 

There  is  also  a  passage  in  Augustine's  54th  epistle 
to  Macedonius,  which  shows  that  he  was  not  unac- 
quainted with  these  letters.  His  words  are,  "  It  is 
true,  which  Seneca,  who  lived  in  the  times  of  the 
apostles,  and  who  tvrote  ceyiain  epistles  to  Paul  which 
are  now  read,  said,  '  he  who  will  hate  those  who  are 
wicked  must  hate  all  men.'  " 

There  is  no  authentic  evidence  that  these  letters 
have  been  noticed  by  any  of  the  rest  of  the  Fathers. 
Indeed,  it  has  been  too  hastily  asserted  by  several 
eminent  critics,  that  Augustine  believed  that  the  let- 
ters of  Paul  to  Seneca  were  genuine  ;  but  the  fact  is, 
that  he  makes  no  mention  whatever  of  Paul's  letters ; 
he  only  mentions  those  of  Seneca  to  Paul.  The  pro- 
bability is  that  he  never  saw  them,  for  had  he  been 
acquainted  with  them,  it  is  scarcely  credible  that  he 
would  have  said  nothing  respecting  them  in  this 
place. 

Neither  does  Jerome  say  anything  from  which  it 
can  with  any  certainty  be  inferred  that  he  received 
these  letters  as  genuine.  He  gives  them  the  title  by 
wliich  they   were   known,   and    says  they  were  read 


TO    SENECA    SPURIOUS.  289 

by  many ;  but  if  he  had  believed  them  to  be  genuine 
letters  of  Paul,  would  he  not  have  said  much  more  ? 
Would  he  not  have  claimed  for  them  a  place  among 
Paul's  canonical  epistles  ?  And  what  proves  that  this 
Father  did  not  believe  them  to  be  genuine  is,  that  in 
this  same-  book  he  gives  a  full  account  of  Paul  and  his 
writings,  and  yet  does  not  make  the  least  mention  of 
these  letters  to  Seneca. 

But  the  style  of  these  letters  sufficiently  demon- 
strates that  they  are  not  genuine.  Nothing  can  be 
more  dissimilar  to  the  style  of  Paul  and  of  Seneca, 
than  that  of  these  epistles.  "  The  style  of  those 
attributed  to  Seneca,"  says  Dupin,  "is  barbarous,  and 
full  of  idioms  that  do  not  belono^  to  the  Latin  tongue.'* 
*' And  those  attributed  to  Paul,"  says  Mr.  Jeremiah 
Jones,  "  have  not  the  least  tincture  of  the  gravity  of 
the  apostle,  but  are  rather  compliments  than  instruc- 
tions." The  subscriptions  of  these  letters  are  very 
different  from  those  used  by  these  writers  in  their 
genuine  epistles.  Seneca  is  made  to  salute  Paul  by 
the  name  of  brother ;  an  appellation  not  in  use  among 
the  heathen,  but  peculiar  to  Christians.  By  several 
of  these  letters  it  would  appear  that  Paul  was  at  Rome 
when  they  were  written,  but  from  others  the  contrary 
may  be  inferred.  It  seems  strange  if  they  were  both 
in  the  city,  that  they  should  date  their  letters  by 
consulships ;  and,  indeed,  this  method  of  dating  letters 
was  wholly  unknown  among  the  Romans ;  and  there 
are  several  mistakes  in  them  in  regard  to  the  con- 
suls in  authority  at  the  time. 

Their  trifling  contents  is  also  a  strong  argument  of 
spuriousness.  "  They  contain  nothing,"  says  Dupin, 
"  worthy  either  of  Seneca  or  of  Paul ;  scarcely  one 
25 


290  PROTEYAXGELIOX    OF   JAMES. 

moral  sentiment  in  the  letters  of  Seneca,  nor  anything 
of  Christianity  in  those  of  Paul."  What  can  be  more 
unlike  Paul  than  the  jBfth  letter,  which  is  occupied 
with  a  servile  apology  for  putting  his  own  name  before 
Seneca's,  in  the  inscription  of  his  letters,  and  declar- 
ing this  to  be  contrary  to  Christianity  ?  These  let- 
ters, moreover,  contain  some  things  wliich  are  not  true, 
as  "  that  the  emperor  Nero  was  delighted  and  sur- 
prised at  the  thoughts  in  Paul's  epistles  to  the 
churches  : — and  that  Nero  was  both  an  admirer  and 
favourer  of  Christianity."  But  very  incongruous  with 
this,  and  also  Avith  Paul's  character  is  that  which  he 
is  made  to  say  in  his  fourth  epistle,  where  he  entreats 
Seneca  to  say  no  more  to  the  emperor  respecting  him 
or  Christianity,  lest  he  should  offend  him.  Yet,  in 
the  sixth  letter  he  advises  Seneca  to  take  convenient 
opportunities  of  insinuating  the  Christian  religion,  and 
things  favourable  to  it  to  Nero  and  his  family.  But 
for  further  particulars  the  reader  is  referred  to  the 
epistles  themselves,  a  translation  of  which  may  be 
found  in  "Jones  on  the  Canon." 

IV.  There  is  extant  a  spurious  gospel  entitled, 
the  "  Protevangelion  of  James,"  in  the  Greek  lan- 
guage, which  was  brought  from  the  east  by  Post  ell, 
who  asserts  that  it  is  held  to  be  genuine  by  the  ori- 
ental churches,  and  is  publicly  read  in  their  assemblies 
with  the  other  Scriptures.  This  learned  man,  more- 
over, undertakes  the  defence  of  this  gospel  as  the 
genuine  production  of  the  apostle  James,  and  insists 
that  it  ought  at  least  to  have  a  place  in  the  Ilagiogra- 
2)ha.  But  his  arguments  are  weak,  and  have  been 
fuliy  refuted  by  Fabricius  and  Jones. 

This    apocryphal    book,    however,    appears    to    be 


PROTEVANGELION   OF   JAMES.  291 

ancient ;  or  at  least  there  was  formerly  a  book  under 
the  same  name,  but  that  it  is  not  canonical  is  easily 
proved.  It  is  quoted  by  none  of  the  ancient  Fathers 
except  Epiphanius,  who  explicitly  rejects  it  as  apo- 
cryphal. It  is  found  in  none  of  the  catalogues,  and 
was  never  read  in  the  primitive  church.  It  contains 
many  false  and  trifling  stories ;  and  in  its  style  and 
composition  is  a  perfect  contrast  to  the  genuine  gospels 
of  our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ.  From  the 
Hebraisms  with  which  it  abounds,  it  has  been  supposed 
to  be  the  work  of  some  person  who  was  originally  a 
Jew;  but  as  it  was  anciently  used  by  the  Gnostics, 
there  can  be  little  doubt  that  the  author  when  he 
wrote,  belonged  to  som.e  one  of  the  heretical  sects 
which  so  abounded  in  primitive  times. 

There  is  also  another  work  which  has  a  near  affinity 
with  this,  called  "The  Nativity  of  Mary."  And 
although  these  books  possess  a  similar  character,  and 
contain  many  things  in  common,  yet  in  other  points 
they  are  contradictory  to  each  other,  as  they  both 
are  to  the  evangelical  history.  The  internal  evi- 
dence is  itself  sufficient  to  satisfy  any  candid  reader 
of  their  apocryphal  character.* 

V.  The  largest  apocryphal  gospel  extant  is  entitled 
"  The  Gospel  of  our  Saviour's  Infancy."  There  is 
also  remaining  a  fragment  of  a  gospel  ascribed  to 
Thomas,  which  probably  was  originally  no  other  than 
the  one  just  mentioned.  These  gospels  were  never 
supposed  to  be  canonical  by  any  Christian  writer. 
They  were  forged  and  circulated  by  the  Gnostics,  and 
altered  from  time  to  time  according  to  their  caprice. 

*  Both  of  these  apocryphal  works  may  be  seen  in  the  second 
volume  of  Jones'  learned  work  on  the  Canon. 


292  GOSPEL   OF   OUR   SAYIOUR'S   INFANCY. 

The  "  Gospel  of  our  Saviour's  Infancy,"  seems  to 
have  been  known  to  Mohammed,  or  rather  to  his 
assistants ;  for  according  to  his  own  account,  in  the 
Koran,  he  was  unable  to  read.  Many  of  the  things 
related  in  the  Koran,  respecting  Christianity,  are 
from  this  apocryphal  work.  This  gospel  is  condemned 
by  almost  every  rule  laid  down  for  the  detection  of 
spurious  writings  ;  and  if  all  other  evidence  were  want- 
ing, the  silly,  trifling  and  ludicrous  stories,  with  which 
it  is  stuffed,  would  be  enough  to  demonstrate,  that  it 
was  spurious  and  apocryphal.  To  give  the  curious 
reader  an  opportunity  of  contrasting  these  apocryphal 
legends  with  the  gravity  and  simplicity  of  the  genuine 
gospels,  I  have  inserted  some  of  the  miracles  recorded 
in  this  book,  at  the  end  of  the  volume.* 

It  seems  highly  probable  that  this  "  Gospel  of  the 
Saviour's  Infancy,"  and  the  book  of  the  "Nativity  of 
Mary,"  were  originally  parts  of  the  same  work;  an 
evidence  of  which  is,  that  in  the  Koran,  there  is  a 
continued  and  connected  story,  which  is  taken  partly 
from  the  one,  and  partly  from  the  other. f  The  same 
thing  is  proved  by  the  fact,  that  Jerome  in  one  place 
speaks  of  a  preface  which  he  had  written  to  the  "  Gos- 
pel of  our  Saviour's  Infancy,"  in  which  he  condemns 
it,  because  it  contradicts  the  gospel  of  John,  and  in 
another  place,  he  uses  the  same  words,  and  says  they 
arc  in  the  preface  to  the  "Nativity  of  Mary." 

Both  these  apocryphal  books  have  been  formerly 
ascribed  to  Lucius  Ciiarinus,  who  lived  in  the  latter 
part  of  the  third  century,  and  who  rendered  himself 
famous,  by  forging  spurious  works  under  the  name  of 
the  apostles. 

*  See  note  II.  f  See  Koran,  chap.  iii. 


THE   ACTS   OF    PILATE.  293 

YI.  There  is  another  apocryphal  gospel,  entitled, 
"the  Gospel  of  Nicodemus,"  or,  "the  Acts  of  Pilate," 
which  was  probably  forged  about  the  same  time  as  the 
one  last  treated  of,  and  it  is  very  likely  by  the  same 
person.  That  it  was  the  custom  for  the  governors  of 
provinces  in  the  Koman  empire,  to  transmit  to  the  em- 
perors an  account  of  all  remarkable  occurrences  under 
their  government,  is  capable  of  proof  from  the  Roman 
history,  and  Eusebius  expressly  informs  us  that  this 
was  customary :  and  Philo  Judseus  speaks  of  "  the 
daily  memoirs  which  were  transmitted  to  Caligula, 
from  Alexandria." 

That  Pontius  Pilate  transmitted  some  account  of 
the  crucifixion  of  Christ,  and  of  his  wonderful  works, 
is,  therefore,  in  itself,  highly  probable ;  but  it  is  ren- 
dered certain,  by  the  public  appeal  made  to  these 
"Acts  of  Pilate,"  both  by  Justin  Martyr  and  Ter- 
TULLIAN,  in  their  Apologies  ;  the  one  addressed  to  the 
Roman  emperor  Antoninus  Pius,  and  the  other  pro- 
bably to  the  Roman  senate.  The  words  of  Justin 
Martyr  are,  "And  of  the  truth  of  these  facts  you 
may  be  informed,  out  of  the  acts  which  w^ere  written 
by  Pontius  Pilate."  And  in  the  same  apology  he 
refers  to  these  acts  for  proof,  "  That  our  Saviour  cured 
all  sorts  of  diseases,  and  raised  the  dead." 

Tertullian,  in 'two  places  of  his  Apology,  appeals 
to  records  which  were  transmitted  to  Tiberius  from 
Jerusalem.  His  testimony  is  remarkable  in  both 
places,  and  deserves  to  be  transcribed:  "Tiberius," 
says  he,  "  in  whose  time  the  Christian  name  became 
first  known  in  the  world,  having  received  information 
from  Palestine  in  Syria,  that  Jesus  Christ  had  there 
given  manifest  proof  of  the  truth  of  his  divinity, 
25* 


294  THE   ACTS    OF    PILATE. 

communicated  it  to  the  senate,  insisting  upon  it  as  his 
prerogative,  that  they  should  assent  to  his  opinion  in 
that  matter ;  but  the  senate  not  approving  it  refused. 
Caesar  continued  in  the  same  opinion,  threatening  those 
■vvho  were  accusers  of  the  Christians." 

In  the  other  passage,  after  enumerating  many  of 
the  miracles  of  Christ,  he  adds,  "All  these  things, 
Pilate  himself,  who  was  in  his  conscience  for  follow- 
ing Christ,  transmitted  to  Tiberius  Caesar ;  and  even 
the  Caesars  themselves  had  been  Christians,  if  it  haa 
been  consistent  with  their  secular  interests."  Both 
Eusebius  and  Jerome,  cite  this  testimony  of  Tertul- 
lian  as  authentic.  It  seems  therefore  certain,  that 
some  account  of  Christ  and  his  actions  was  trans- 
mitted by  Pilate  to  the  emperor.  "For,"  to  use  the 
words  of  an  eminent  man,  "  Tertullian,  though  a 
Christian  writer,  durst  never  have  presumed  to  impose 
upon  the  senate  themselves,  with  such  a  remarkable 
story,  if  he  was  not  able  to  prove  it ;  and  that  he  was, 
is  evident  from  Justin  Martyr,  who  often  appeals  to 
the  Acts  of  Pilate,  concerning  the  history  of  our  Sa- 
viour— That  Pilate  did  send  such  acts  is  evident,  for 
scarce  any  man,  much  less  such  a  man  as  Justin  Mar- 
tyr, would  have  been  so  foolish,  or  so  confident,  as  to 
affirm  a  thing  in  which  it  would  be  so  easy  to  convict 
him  of  falsehood."* 

And  another,  speaking  of  the  same  thing,  says, 
"  They  were  men  of  excellent  learning  and  judg- 
ment;  but  no  man  who  could  write  an  apology, 
can  be  supposed  to  have  so  little  understanding,  as 
to  appeal  to  that  account  Avhicli  Pilate  sent  to  Tibe- 
rius, concerning  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  in  apol- 
*Dr.  Purkcr. 


THE   ACTS    OF   PILATE.  295 

Ogles,  dedicated  to  the  Roman  emperor  himself,  and 
to  the  senate,  if  no  such  account  had  ever  been  sent."* 

It  does  not  follow,  however,  that  these  Fathers  had 
ever  seen  these  Acts,  or  that  they  were  ever  seen  by 
any  Christian.  During  the  reigns  of  heathen  em- 
perors. Christians  could  have  no  access  to  the  ar- 
chives of  the  nation  ;  but  the  fact  of  the  existence 
of  such  a  record  might  have  been,  and  probably  was, 
a  matter  of  public  notoriety ;  otherwise,  we  never 
can  account  for  the  confident  appeal  of  these  learned 
and  respectable  writers.  There  is  no  difiiculty  in 
conceiving  how  such  a  fact  might  have  been  certainly 
known  to  these  Fathers,  without  supposing  that  they 
had  seen  the  record.  As  the  learned  Casaubon  says, 
*'  Some  servants  or  officers  of  one  of  the  Caesars,  who 
were  converted  to  Christianity,  and  had  opportunity 
of  searching  the  public  records  at  Rome,  gave  this 
account  to  some  Christians,  from  whom  Justin  and 
Tertullian  had  it." 

It  may  seem  to  be  an  objection  to  the  existence  of 
such  Acts,  that  they  were  never  made  public  when 
the  emperors  became  Christians  ;  but  it  is  altogether 
probable,  that  they  were  destroyed  through  the  ma- 
lice of  the  senate,  or  of  some  Roman  emperor  who 
was  hostile  to  Christianity.  They  who  took  so  much 
pains  to  destroy  the  writings  of  Christians,  would  not 
suffer  such  a  monument  of  the  truth  of  Christianity 
to  remain  in  their  own  palace.  But  as  to  those  Acts 
of  Pilate  which  are  now  extant,  no  one  supposes  that 
they  are  genuine.  They  have  every  mark  of  being 
spurious.      The   external    and    internal   evidence   is 

*  Dr.  Jenkin. 


296  MOTIVES   FOR   THE    FORGERY 

equally  against  them;  and  it  would  be  a  waste  of  time 
to  enter  into  any  discussion  of  this  point. 

It  may,  however,  be  worth  while  to  inquire  into  the 
motives  which  probably  led  some  mistaken  Christian 
to  forge  such  a  narrative.  And  there  seems  to  have 
been  two  :  first,  to  have  it  in  his  power  to  show  the 
record,  to  which  the  Fathers  had  so  confidently  re- 
ferred. The  heathen  adversaries  might  say,  after  the 
destruction  of  the  genuine  Acts  of  Pilate,  Where  is  the 
document  to  which  this  appeal  has  been  made  ?  let  it 
be  produced.  And  some  man,  thinking  that  he  could 
serve  the  cause  of  Christianity  by  forging  Acts, 
under  the  name  of  Pilate,  was  induced  through  a  mis- 
taken zeal,  to  write  this  narrative. 

But  there  was  another  reason  w^hich  probably  had 
some  influence  on  this  fact.  About  the  close  of  the 
third  century,  the  heathen  had  forged  and  published 
a  writing  called  "  The  Acts  of  Pilate,"  the  object  of 
which  was  to  render  the  Christians  odious  and  con- 
temptible to  the  public,  by  foul  calumnies  against 
their  Founder  and  his  apostles.  Of  this  fact,  EuSE- 
Bius  gives  us  express  and  particular  information. 
"From  whence,"  says  he,  "the  forgery  of  these  is 
manifestly  detected,  who  have  lately  published  cer- 
tain Acts  against  our  Saviour.  In  which,  first,  tlie 
very  time  wliich  is  assigned  to  them  discovers  the 
imposture  ;  for  those  things  Avliich  they  have  impu- 
dently forged,  to  have  come  to  pass  at  our  Saviour's 
crucifixion,  are  said  to  have  occurred  in  the  fourth 
consulship  of  Tiberius,  which  coincides  with  the 
seventh  of  his  reign ;  at  which  time,  it  is  certain, 
Pilate  was  not  yet  come  into  Judea,  if  any  credit  is 
due  to  Josephus,  who  expressly  says,  that  Pilate  was 


OP  THESE  ACTS.  297 

not  constituted  governor  of  Judea  until  tlie  twelfth 
year  of  Tiberius."*  And  in  another  place  he  says, 
"  Seeing  therefore  that  this  writer,  (Josephus)  who 
was  himself  a  Jew,  has  related  such  things  in  his 
history  concerning  John  the  Baptist  and  the  Saviour, 
what  can  they  possibly  say  for  themselves,  to  prevent 
being  convicted  of  the  most  impudent  forgery,  who 
wrote  those  things  against  John  and  Christ."  And 
in  the  ninth  book  of  his  ecclesiastical  history,  this 
writer  gives  us  information,  still  more  particular,  re- 
specting this  malicious  forgery.  "At  length,  (the 
heathen)  having  forged  certain  Acts  of  Pilate,  con- 
cerning our  Saviour,  which  were  full  of  all  sorts  of 
blasphemy  against  Christ,  they  caused  them,  by  the 
decree  of  Maximinus,  to  be  dispersed  through  all 
parts  of  the  empire ;  commanding  by  letters,  that 
they  should  be  published  to  all  persons,  in  every  place, 
both  in  cities  and  country  places ;  and  that  school- 
masters should  put  them  into  the  hands  of  their  chil- 
dren, and  oblige  them  to  learn  them  by  heart,  instead 
of  their  usual  lessons." 

Here  it  may  be  observed,  that  while  this  impudent 
forgery  clearly  shows  with  w^hat  malicious  efforts  the 
attempt  was  made  to  subvert  the  gospel,  it  proves  at 
the  same  time,  that  there  had  existed  a  document 
under  the  name  of  "  The  Acts  of  Pilate."  Now,  the 
circulation  of  such  an  impious  piece  of  blasphemy, 
probably  instigated  Charinus,  or  whoever  was  the 
author  of  these  Acts,  to  counteract  them  by  a  work 
of  another  kind,  under  the  same  name.  How  this 
book  came  to  be  called,  ''  The  Gospel  of  Nicodemus," 
will  appear  by  the  subscription  annexed  to  it,  in  which 
*  Euseb.  Ecc.  Hist,  lib,  I.  c  9, 11. 


298  ACTS   OF   PAUL   AND   THECLA. 

it  is  said,  ''  The  emperor  Tiieodosius  the  great,  found 
at  Jerusalem,  in  the  hall  of  Pontius  Pilate,  among  the 
public  records,  the  things  which  were  transacted  in 
the  nineteenth  year  of  Tiberius  Cresar,  emperor  of  the 
Romans — being  a  history  written  in  Hebrew  by  Nico- 
demus,  of  what  happened  after  our  Saviour's  cruci- 
fixion." And  if  this  subscription  be  no  part  of  the 
original  work,  still  it  may  have  occasioned  this  title ; 
or  it  may  have  originated  in  the  fact,  that  much  is 
said  about  Nicodemus  in  the  story  which  is  here  told. 
But  even  if  we  had  the  original  Acts  of  Pilate,  or 
some  history  of  Nicodemus,  it  needs  no  proof  that 
they  could  have  no  just  claim  to  a  place  in  the 
Canon. 

VII.  The  last  apocryphal  book  which  I  shall  men- 
tion, is  that  entitled  "  The  Acts  of  Paul  and  Thecla." 
There  is  no  doubt  but  that  this  book  is  apocryphal. 
It  was  so  considered  by  all  the  Fathers  who  have 
mentioned  it.  Tertullian  says  respecting  it,  "But 
if  any  read  the  apocryphal  books  of  Paul,  and  thence 
defend  the  right  of  women  to  teach  and  baptize,  by 
the  example  of  Thecla,  let  them  consider  that  a 
certain  presbyter  of  Asia,  who  forged  that  book, 
under  the  name  of  Paul,  being  convicted  of  forgery, 
cor»fcssed  that  lie  did  it  out  of  respect  to  Paul,  and  so 
left  his  place.""^  And  Jerome,  in  his  life  of  Luke, 
says,  "  The  Acts  of  Paul  and  Thecla,  with  the  whole 
story  of  the  baptized  lion,  I  reckon  among  the  apo- 
cryphal Scriptures."  And  in  the  decree  of  Pope 
Gelasius,  it  is  asserted,  "  That  the  '  Acts  of  Thecla 
and  Paul'  is  apocryphal." 

It  is  manifest,  however,  that  the  primitive  Chris- 
*  TertuU.  De  Daptismo. 


ACTS    OF   PAUL   AND   THECLA.  299 

tians  gave  credit  to  a  story  respecting  Paul  and 
Tliecla,  on  which  this  book  is  founded :  for  it  is  often 
referred  to  as  a  history  well  known  and  commonly 
believed.  Thus  Cyprian,  or  some  ancient  writer 
under  his  name,  says,  "Help  us,  0  Lord,  as  thou 
didst  help  the  apostles  in  their  imprisonment,  Thecla 
amidst  the  flames,  Paul  in  his  persecutions,  and  Peter 
amidst  the  waves  of  the  sea."  And  again,  "Deliver 
me,  0  Lord,  as  thou  didst  deliver  Thecla,  when  in  the 
midst  of  the  amphitheatre  she  was  in  conflict  with  the 
wild  beasts."  Eusebius  mentions  a  woman  by  this 
name,  but  he  places  her  long  after  the  apostle  Paul, 
and  she  is,  therefore,  supposed  to  be  another  person. 
Epiphanius  relates,  "That  when  Thecla  met  Paul, 
she  determined  against  marriage,  although  she  was 
then  engaged  to  a  very  agreeable  young  man."*  Au- 
gustine refers  to  the  same  thing,  and  says,  "  By  a 
discourse  of  Paul's,  at  Iconium,  he  incited  Thecla  to 
a  resolution  of  perpetual  virginity,  although  she  was 
then  actually  engaged  to  be  married."  Many  others 
of  the  Fathers  speak  of  Thecla  as  of  a  person  whose 
history  was  well  known.  And  among  the  moderns, 
Baronius,  Locrinus,  and  Grabe,  look  upon  this  history 
as  true  and  genuine,  written  in  the  apostolic  age,  and 
containing  nothing  superstitious  or  unsuitable  to  that 
time.  But  none  have  ventured  to  assert  that  these 
Acts  ought  to  have  a  place  in  the  Canon. 

No  doubt  the  book  now  extant  is  greatly  altered 
from  that  ancient  history  referred  to  by  the  Fathers, 
and  probably  the  original  story  was  founded  on  some 
tradition  which  had  a  foundation  in  truth ;  but  what 
the  truth  is,  it  is  impossible  now  to  discover  among 
*  Epiph.  Haer.  Ixviii. 


300        ACTS  OF  PAUL  AXD  THECLA. 

such  a  mass  of  fables  and  ridiculous  stories  as  the 
book  contains.  As  it  now  stands,  it  contains  numer- 
ous things  which  are  false  in  fact ;  others  which  are 
inconsistent  with  the  canonical  Scriptures,  and  some 
totally  incompatible  with  the  true  character  of  Paul. 
Moreover,  it  is  favourable  to  several  superstitious 
practices  which  had  no  existence  in  the  apostles' 
days ;  and  finally,  the  forgery  was  acknowledged  as 
it  relates  to  the  ancient  Acts,  and  those  now  existing 
cannot  be  more  genuine  than  the  original ;  but  to 
these  many  things  have  been  added  of  a  silly  and 
superstitious  kind. 


UNWRITTEN   TRADITIONS.  801 


SECTION  XYII. 


NO   PART   OF   THE    CHRISTIAN   REVELATION   HANDED    DOWN 
BY   UNWRITTEN    TRADITION. 

In  the  former  part  of  this  work  it  was  seen  that  it 
was  not  only  necessary  to  show  that  the  apocryphal 
writings  had  no  right  to  a  place  in  the  sacred  volume, 
but  that  there  was  no  additional  revelation  which  had 
been  handed  down  by  oral  tradition.  The  same 
necessity  devolves  upon  us  in  relation  to  the  New 
Testament ;  for  while  it  is  pretty  generally  agreed 
by  all  Christians  what  books  should  be  received  into 
the  Canon,  there  is  a  large  society  which  strenuously 
maintains  that  besides  the  revelation  contained  in  the 
divine  record  written  by  the  apostles  and  their  assist- 
ants, by  the  plenary  inspiration  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
there  is  a  further  revelation  consisting  of  such  things 
as  were  received  from  the  mouth  of  Christ  himself 
while  upon  earth,  or  taught  to  the  churches  by  his  in- 
spired apostles,  which  were  not  by  them  nor  in  their 
time  committed  to  writing,  but  which  have  come  down 
to  us  by  unbroken  tradition. 

The  importance  of  this  inquiry  is  manifest ;  for  if, 

in  addition  to   the  written  word,  there  are  important 

doctrines    and   necessary    sacraments  of  the    church 

which  have  come  down   by  tradition,  it  would  be  a, 

26 


302  THE  ROMTsn  doctiiixe 

perilous  thing  for  us  to  remain  ignorant  of  tliose 
things  \yhich  God  has  enjoined,  or  to  deprive  ourselves 
of  the  benefits  to  be  derived  from  those  means  of  grace, 
■which  he  has  instituted  for  the  edification  and  salva- 
tion of  the  church.  But  seeing  traditions  are  much 
more  liable  to  alteration  and  corruption  than  written 
documents,  it  is  very  necessary  that  we  should  be  on 
our  guard  against  imposition ;  and  if  it  is  a  duty  to 
exercise  much  care  and  diligence  in  distinguishing 
between  inspired  books  and  such  as  are  spurious,  it 
cannot  be  less  incumbent  to  ascertain  first  whether 
any  part  of  God's  revealed  will  has  been  handed  down 
by  tradition  only,  and  next  to  learn  accurately  what 
those  things  are  which  have  been  thus  communicated. 
And  as  there  are  apocryphal  books  which  claim  a 
place  in  the  Canon,  so  doubtless  there  would  be  apo- 
cryphal traditions,  if  any  truths  had  been  conveyed  to 
the  church  through  this  channel.  But  if  there  be  no 
satisfactory  evidence  of  any  such  revelation  having  come 
down  to  us,  nor  any  possibility  of  ascertaining  what 
proceeded  from  the  apostles,  and  what  from  the  fancy 
and  superstition  of  men,  then  we  are  right  in  refusing 
the  high  claims  of  tradition,  and  adhering  inflexibly 
to  the  written  word,  "which  is  able,"  through  faith, 
*'  to  make  us  wise  unto  salvation." 

Tliis  doctrine  of  traditions  is  most  convenient  and 
favourable  to  the  church  of  Rome  in  all  her  contro- 
versies with  Protestants  and  others ;  for  whatever  she 
may  assert  as  an  article  of  faith,  or  teach  as  a  part  of 
Christian  duty,  although  there  be  no  vestige  of  it  in 
the  word  of  God,  may  readily  be  established  by  tra- 
dition. For  as  the  church  alone  has  the  keeping  of 
tliis  body  of  oral  law,  she  only  is  the  proper  judge  of 


OF   UNWRITTEN   TRADITIONS.  303 

■what  it  contains,  and  indeed  can  make  it  to  suit  her- 
self. If  we  should  concede  to  the  Romanists  what 
they  claim  on  this  point,  the  controversy  with  them 
might  well  be  brought  to  an  end,  and  all  we  should 
have  to  do,  would  be  to  yield  implicit  faith  to  what- 
ever they  might  please  to  teach  us.  And  even  if  Ave 
should  be  required  to  believe  and  practise,  in  direct 
opposition  to  the  plain  declarations  of  holy  Scripture, 
yet,  as  the  true  interpretation  of  Scripture  on  this 
plan  is  only  in  the  hands  of  the  infallible  head  of 
the  church,  and  is  indeed  understood  by  means  of 
miTVTitten  traditions,  we  must  not  trust  to  our  own 
understanding  in  the  most  evident  matters,  nor  even 
to  our  own  senses,  although  several  of  them  should 
concur  in  giving  us  notice  of  some  fact.  Now,  be- 
fore we  give  ourselves  up  to  be  led  blindly  in  such 
a  way  as  this,  it  behoves  us  diligently  and  impartially 
to  inquire,  whether  God  has  required  of  us  this  im- 
plicit submission  to  men.  We  ought  to  be  assui-ed 
that  their  authority  over  our  faith  and  conscience 
lias  a  divine  warrant  for  its  exercise  ;  and  especially 
we  should  be  satisfied,  on  sufficient  grounds,  that 
these  unwritten  traditions,  on  which  the  whole  fabric 
rests,  are  truly  the  commands  of  God  ;  for  if  they  are 
not,  we  have  the  highest  authority  for  rejecting  them. 
And  if  their  claim  to  a  divine  origin  cannot  be  made 
out  clearly,  they  cannot  in  reason  bind  us  to  obedi- 
ence ;  for  when  God  gives  a  law  he  promulgates  it 
with  sufficient  clearness  that  all  whom  it  concerns  may 
know  what  is  required  of  them. 

To   exhibit  fairly  the  true  point  of  controversy  on 
this  subject,  it  will  be  requisite  to  make  several  pre- 


304  THE    ROMISH    DOCTRINE 

iiminary  observations,  that  it  may  be  clearly  under- 
stood what  we  admit  and  what  we  deny. 

1.  In  the  first  place  then,  it  is  readily  admitted 
that  a  law  revealed  from  heaven  and  communicated 
to  us  orally,  with  clear  evidence  of  its  origin,  is  as 
binding  as  if  written  ever  so  often.  When  God  ut- 
tered the  ten  commandments  on  Mount  Sinai,  in  the 
midst  of  thunderings  and  lightnings,  it  surely  was  as 
obligatory  upon  the  hearers,  as  after  he  had  written 
them  on  tables  of  stone.  It  is  a  dictate  of  common 
sense,  that  it  is  a  matter  of  indifference  how  a  divine 
revelation  is  communicated,  provided  it  come  to  us 
properly  authenticated. 

2.  Again,  it  is  conceded,  that  for  a  long  time  there 
was  no  other  method  of  transmitting  the  revelations 
received  from  heaven,  from  generation  to  genera- 
tion, but  by  oral  tradition,  and  such  external  memo- 
rials as  aided  in  keeping  up  the  remembrance  of  im- 
portant transactions.  As  far  as  appears  books  were 
unknown,  and  letters  not  in  use,  until  a  considerable 
time  after  the  flood.  During  the  long  period  which 
preceded  the  time  of  Moses,  all  revelations  must  have 
been  handed  down  by  tradition.  But  while  this  con- 
cession is  willingly  made,  it  ought  in  connection  to 
be  remarked,  that  this  mode  was  then  used  because 
no  other  existed ;  and  that,  in  the  early  ages  of  the 
world,  the  longevity  of  the  patriarchs  rendered  that 
a  comparatively  safe  channel  of  communication 
which  would  now  be  most  uncertain ;  and  notAvith- 
standing  this  advantage,  the  fact  was,  that  in  every 
instance,  as  far  as  we  are  informed,  in  which  divine 
truth  was  committed  to  tradition,  it  was  utterly  lost, 
or   soon  became   so   corrupted    by   foreign    mixtures, 


OF    UNWRITTEN    TRADITIONS.  805 

that  it  was  impossible  to  ascertain  wliat  part  of  the 
mass  contained  a  revelation  from  God.  It  is  there- 
fore the  plausible  opinion  of  some,  that  writing  was 
revealed  from  heaven,  for  the  very  purpose  of  avoid- 
ing the  evil  which  had  been  experienced,  and  that 
there  might  be  a  certain  vehicle  for  all  divine  com- 
munications :  and  it  is  certain,  that  all  that  we  know 
of  the  history  of  alphabetical  writing,  leads  us  to  con- 
nect its  origin  with  the  commencement  of  written  re- 
velations. 

It  is,  therefore,  not  an  improbable  supposition,  that 
God  taught  letters  to  Moses  for  the  express  purpose 
of  conveying,  by  this  means,  his  laws  to  distant  ages, 
without  alteration ;  and  it  deserves  to  be  well  con- 
sidered, that  after  the  command  was  given  to  Moses, 
to  write  in  a  book  the  laws  and  statutes  delivered  to 
him,  nothing  was  left  to  oral  tradition,  as  has  been 
shown  in  the  former  part  of  this  work. 

3.  It  will  be  granted  also,  that  tradition,  especially 
when  connected  with  external  memorials,  is  sufficient 
to  transmit,  through  a  long  lapse  of  time,  the  know- 
ledge of  particular  events,  or  of  transactions  of  a  very 
simple  nature. 

Thus  it  may  be  admitted,  that  if  the  gospels  had 
not  come  down  to  us,  we  might  by  tradition  be  as- 
sured that  Christ  instituted  the  eucharist  as  a  memo- 
rial of  his  death  ;  for,  from  the  time  of  its  institution, 
it  has,  in  every  successive  age,  and  in  many  countries, 
been  celebrated  to  perpetuate  the  remembrance  of  that 
event.  And  it  is  not  credible  that  such  a  tradition 
should  be  uniform  at  all  times,  and  everywhere,  and 
be  connected  with  the  same  external  rite,  if  it  was  not 
founded  in  fact.  Besides,  the  thing  handed  down,  in 
26* 


30G  THE    ROMISH   DOCTRINE 

tliis  instance,  is  so  simple  in  its  nature,  that  there  was 
no  room  for  mistake. 

There  is  one  fact,  for  the  truth  of  v^hich.  we  de- 
pend entirely  on  tradition,  so  far  as  external  testimony 
is  concerned,  and  that  is  the  truth  Avhich  in  this 
•work  we  have  heen  attempting  to  establish,  that  the 
books  of  the  New  Testament  were  written  by  the 
persons  under  whose  names  they  ha.ve  come  down 
to  us.  This  fact  is  incapable  of  being  proved  from 
the  Scriptures,  because  we  must  first  be  assured  that 
they  contain  the  testimony  of  inspired  men  before  we 
can  prove  anything  by  them.  The  point  to  be  esta- 
blished here  is,  that  the  apostles  wrote  these  books. 
If  it  were  ever  so  often  asserted  in  a  book,  that  a 
certain  person  was  its  author,  this  would  not  be  sat- 
isfactory evidence  of  its  genuineness,  because  any 
impostor  can  write  what  falsehoods  he  pleases  in  a 
book,  and  may  ascribe  it  to  whom  he  will ;  as  in 
fact  many  have  written  spurious  works,  and  ascribed 
them  to  the  apostles.  We  must,  therefore,  have  the 
testimony  of  those  who  had  the  opportunity  of  judging 
of  the  fact,  given  either  explicitly  or  implicitly. 

In  most  cases,  where  a  book  is  published  under  the 
name  of  some  certain  author,  in  the  country  in  which 
he  lived  and  was  known,  a  general  silent  acquies- 
cence in  the  fact,  by  the  people  of  that  age  and 
country,  with  the  consent  of  all  that  came  after  them, 
may  be  considered  as  satisfactory  evidence  of  the 
genuineness  of  such  book.  But  where  much  depends 
on  the  certainty  of  the  fact  in  question,  it  is  neces- 
sary to  have  positive  testimony ;  and  in  order  that  it 
be  satisfactory,  it  should  be  universal,  and  uncontra- 
dicted.    When,    therefore,   a   certain   volume   is   ex- 


OF   UNWRITTEN  TRADITIONS.  307 

presslj  received  as  the  work  of  certain  individuals, 
by  all  who  lived  at  or  near  the  time  when  it  was  pub- 
lished, and  all  succeeding  writings  concur  in  ascribing 
it  to  the  same  persons,  and  not  a  solitary  voice  is 
raised  in  contradiction,  the  evidence  of  its  genuine- 
ness seems  to  be  as  complete  as  the  nature  of  the 
case  admits.  Just  such  is  the  evidence  of  the  gen- 
uineness of  the  books  of  the  New  Testament ;  or, 
at  least,  of  most  of  them.  It  is,  however,  the  evi- 
dence of  tradition ;  but  of  such  a  tradition  as  is  abun- 
dantly sufficient  to  establish  a  fact  of  this  sort.  The 
thing  attested  is  most  simple  in  its  nature,  and  not 
liable  to  be  misunderstood.  This  necessity  of  tradi- 
tion to  establish  the  authenticity  of  the  books  of  the 
New  Testament,  has  been  made  a  great  handle  of 
by  the  Romanists,  in  the  defence  of  their  favourite 
doctrine.  They  pretend  that  the  point  which  we 
have  here  conceded,  is  all  that  is  necessary  to  estab- 
lish their  whole  system  on  the  firmest  foundation. 
They  argue,  that  if  we  must  receive  the  Scriptures 
themselves  by  tradition,  much  more  other  things. 
Indeed,  they  ascribe  all  the  authority  which  the 
Scriptures  possess  to  the  testimony  of  the  church, 
without  which  they  assert  that  they  would  deserve 
no  more  credit  than  any  other  writings.  But  because 
a  single  fact,  incapable  of  proof  in  any  other  way, 
must  be  received  by  tradition,  it  does  not  follow  that 
numerous  other  matters  which  might  easily  have  been 
recorded,  must  be  learned  in  the  same  manner.  Be- 
cause a  document  requires  oral  testimony  to  establish 
its  authenticity,  it  is  not  therefore  necessary  to  prove 
the  truth  of  the  matters  contained  in  that  record  by 
the  same  means. 


308  THE   ROMISH   DOCTRINE 

The  very  purpose  of  written  records  is  to  prevent 
the  necessity  of  trusting  to  the  uncertainty  of  tradi- 
tion; and  as  to  the  allegation  that  the  Scriptures 
owe  their  authority  to  the  church,  it  amounts  to  no 
more  than  this,  which  we  freely  admit,  that  it  is  hy 
the  testimony  of  the  early  Fathers  that  we  are  as- 
sured that  these  writings  are  the  productions  of  the 
apostles,  and  it  is  true  that  most  of  those  witnesses 
who  have  given  testimony  were  members  of  the 
Catholic  church.  But  our  confidence  in  their  testi- 
mony on  this  point,  is  not  because  they  were  mem- 
bers of  the  church,  but  because  they  lived  in  times 
and  circumstances  favourable  to  an  accurate  know- 
ledge of  the  fact  which  they  report.  And  according- 
ly we  admit  the  testimony  of  those  who  were  out  of 
the  church  ;  yea,  of  its  bitterest  enemies  to  the  same 
fact,  and  on  some  accounts  judge  it  to  be  the  most  un- 
exceptionable. AVhile  we  weigh  this  evidence  it  would 
be  absurd  to  make  its  validity  depend  on  the  witnesses 
being  members  of  the  church ;  for  that  would  be  to 
determine  that  the  church  was  divine  and  infallible, 
before  we  had  ascertained  that  the  Scriptures  were 
the  word  of  God.  Surely,  if  on  examination  it  had 
turned  out  that  the  Scriptures  were  not  inspired,  the 
authority  of  the  Christian  church  would  have  been 
worth  nothing,  and  therefore  previously  to  the 
decision  on  this  point  we  cannot  defer  anything  to 
the  authority  of  the  church.  The  truth  is,  that  the 
witnesses  being  of  the  church  is,  in  this  inquiry, 
merely  an  incidental  circumstance.  A  sufficient  num- 
ber of  competent  and  credible  witnesses,  not  of  the 
church,  would  establish  the  fact  just  as  avcII  as  those 
who  have  given  testimony,  and,  as  was  before  observed, 


OF   UNWRITTEN  TRADITIONS.  309 

6uch  testimony  on  the  score  of  freedom  from  all 
partiality  has  the  advantage. 

The  testimony  of  Jews  and  heathen  has,  on  this 
account,  been  demanded  by  infidels,  and  has  been 
sought  for  with  avidity  by  the  defenders  of  Christi- 
anity, and  in  the  view  of  all  considerate  men  is  of 
great  weight.  But  it  is  not  just  to  ascribe  the 
authority  of  these  books  to  the  church,  because  the 
greater  number  of  the  witnesses  of  their  apostoli- 
cal origin  were  members  of  the  church.  The  law 
enacted  by  the  supreme  legislature  of  the  state  does 
not  owe  its  authority  to  the  men  who  attest  its  genu- 
ineness. It  is  true,  it  would  not  be  known  certainly 
to  be  a  law  without  the  attestation,  but  it  would  be 
absurd  to  ascribe  the  authority  of  the  law  to  the  per- 
sons whose  testimony  proved  that  it  was  really  a  law 
of  the  state.  The  cases  are  exactly  parallel.  The 
Scriptures  cannot  owe  their  authority  to  the  church, 
for  without  them  the  church  can  have  no  authority, 
and  although  she  may,  and  does  give  ample  testi- 
mony in  favour  of  their  divine  origin,  this  confers  no 
authority  on  them,  it  only  proves  to  us  that  they  have 
authority  which  is  derived  from  the  Spirit  of  God,  by 
whom  they  were  indited.  It  is  truly  wonderful  how  this 
plain  case  has  been  perplexed  and  darkened  by  the  arti- 
fice and  sophistry  of  the  writers  of  the  church  of  Rome. 

But  if  it  be  insisted,  that  if  we  admit  tradition  as 
sufiicient  evidence  of  a  fact  in  one  case,  we  ought  to 
do  so  in  every  other  where  the  tradition  is  as  clear, 
we  answer,  that  to  this  we  have  no  objection,  pro- 
vided this  species  of  proof  be  as  necessary  and  as 
clear  in  the  one  case  as  the  other.  Let  any  other 
fact  be  shown  to  be  as  fully  attested  as  the  genuine- 


310  THE  ROMisn  doctrixe 

ness  of  the  books  of  the  New  Testament,  and  to 
need  this  kind  of  proof  as  much,  and  we  will  not 
hesitate  to  receive  it  as  true,  whatever  may  be  the 
consequence.  But  the  very  fact  which  we  have 
been  considering,  seems  to  raise  a  strong  presump- 
tion against  the  necessity  of  depending  on  tradition 
for  anything  else.  Why  were  these  books  written  ? 
Was  it  not  to  convey  to  us,  and  to  all  future  ages, 
the  revelations  of  God  to  man  ?  Because  it  is  neces- 
sary to  authenticate  by  testimony  this  record,  must 
we  depend  on  the  same  testimony  for  information  on 
the  points  of  which  the  record  treats  ?  Surely  not. 
For  the  proof  of  these  we  have  nothing  to  do  bi^t 
refer  to  the  document  itself;  otherwise  the  posses- 
sion of  written  records  would  be  useless.  If,  indeed, 
a  doubt  should  arise  about  the  meaning  of  something 
in  the  record,  it  would  not  be  unreasonable  to  inquire 
how  it  had  been  understood  and  practised  on  by 
those  who  received  it  at  first ;  but  if  we  should  find 
a  society  acting  in  direct  opposition  to  a  written 
charter  on  which  their  existence  depended,  and  pre- 
tending to  prove  that  they  were  right  by  appealing 
from  the  written  documents  to  vague  traditions,  all 
sensible  men  not  interested  would  judge  that  the  case 
was  a  very  suspicious  one. 

4.  We  are,  moreover,  ready  to  acknowledge  that 
the  gospel  was  at  first,  for  several  years,  communi- 
cated orally  by  the  apostles  and  their  assistants.  The 
churches  when  first  planted  had  no  written  gospels ; 
they  received  the  same  truths  now  contained  in  the 
gospels  and  epistles,  by  the  preaching  of  the  apostles 
and  others ;  and,  doubtless,  were  as  well  instructed  as 
those    chui'chcs   which   have   had   possession   of    thy 


OF   UNWRITTEN  TRADITIONS.  311 

wliole  inspired  volume.  And  what  tliey  had  thus 
received  without  book  they  could  communicate  to 
others,  and  thus,  if  the  gospels  and  epistles  had  never 
been  written,  the  Christian  religion  might  have  been 
transmitted  from  generation  to  generation.  Then  it 
may  be  asked,  why  the  writing  of  these  books  should 
hinder  the  transmission  of  many  things,  which  might 
not  be  contained  in  them,  to  future  generations  ?  for 
it  cannot  be  doubted  that  many  things  were  said  and 
done  by  Christ  which  were  not  recorded  in  the  gos- 
pels ;  and  there  is  reason  to  think  that  the  apostles 
were  much  fuller  in  their  sermons  than  in  their 
writings ;  and  that  they  established  many  rules  for 
the  good  order  and  government  of  the  church,  of 
which  we  have  in  their  epistles  either  no  account 
or  only  brief  hints  ;  which  though  they  might  be 
readily  understood  by  those  who  had  received  their 
verbal  instructions,  are  insufficient  without  tradition  to 
teach  us  what  rules  and  institutions  Avere  established 
in  the  churches  by  apostolical  authority.  Now,  if 
these  were  transmitted  by  tradition  to  the  next  gene- 
ration, and  by  them  to  the  following,  and  so  on  in 
an  uninterrupted  series  until  the  present  time,  are  we 
not  as  much  bound  to  receive  such  traditions,  and  be 
governed  by  them  as  by  the  written  word  ? 

I  have  now  presented  the  argument  in  favour  of  tra- 
ditions in  the  strongest  light  in  which  I  am  able  to 
place  it ;  and  it  would  be  uncandid  not  to  admit,  that 
it  wears  at  first  sight  a  face  of  plausibility :  and  if 
the  whole  case  as  here  stated,  could  be  made  out  with 
satisfactory  evidence,  I  think  we  should  be  constrained 
to  receive,  to  some  extent,  this  oral  law  of  the  Ro- 
mish church.     But  before  any  man  can  reasonably 


312  THE    ROMISH    DOCTRIXE 

be  required  to  rest  his  faith  on  tradition,  he  has  a 
right  to  be  satisfied  on  several  important  points ;  as, 
"whether  it  was  the  purpose  of  God  to  permit  any 
part  of  the  revelation  intended  for  the  use  of  the 
church,  in  all  future  ages,  to  be  handed  down  by 
tradition.  For,  as  he  directed  everything  in  the  law 
given  at  Mount  Sinai,  intended  to  regulate  the  faith 
and  practice  of  the  Israelites,  to  be  committed  to  writ 
ing  by  Moses,  it  is  noways  improbable  that  the  same 
plan  was  pursued,  in  regard  to  the  writings  of  the 
New  Covenant ;  especially,  when  it  is  considered  how 
much  superior  written  communications  are  to  verbal, 
as  it  respects  accuracy.  When  a  channel  for  con- 
veying the  truth  had  been  provided,  calculated  to 
preserve  all  communications  from  corruption,  and 
when  it  is  acknowledged,  that  this  was  used  for  a 
part  of  the  matter  to  be  transmitted,  how  can  it  be 
accounted  for,  that  another  part  should  be  committed 
to  the  uncertainty  of  oral  tradition  ?  Why  not  com- 
mit the  whole  to  writing  ? 

But  it  is  incumbent  on  the  advocates  of  tradition 
to  show,  by  undoubted  proofs,  that  what  they  say  has 
come  down  by  tradition  was  really  received  from 
the  mouth  of  Christ,  or  from  the  teaching  of  his  apos- 
tles. As  they  wish  to  claim  for  this  rule  an  autho- 
rity fully  equal  to  that  which  is  given  to  the  Scrip- 
tures, they  ought  to  be  able  to  produce  the  very 
words  in  which  these  instructions  were  given.  But 
this  they  do  not  pretend  to  do.  It  may  be  said,  in- 
deed, that  words  and  sentences,  in  their  just  order 
and  connection,  cannot  be  conveyed  by  tradition,  and 
therefore  this  demand  is  unreasonable.  I  answer,  that 
this  allegation  is  most  true,  but  instead  of  making  in 


OF   UNWRITTEN   TRADITIONS.  313 

favour  of  traditions,  it  is  a  strong  argument  to  prove, 
that  nothing  thus  received  can  be  of  equal  certainty 
and  authority  with  the  written  word.  When  an  arti- 
cle of  faith  is  proposed,  which  is  contained  in  the 
Scriptures,  we  can  turn  to  the  sacred  text  and  read 
the  words  of  Christ  and  his  apostles,  and  may  be  as- 
sured that  they  express  the  truth  contained  in  said 
article.  But  if  an  article  of  faith  be  asserted  to  have 
come  down  by  tradition,  we  have  no  opportunity  of 
knowing  the  words  in  which  it  was  expressed :  for, 
while  it  is  pretended  that  the  doctrine  or  instruction 
has  reached  us,  the  words  have  been  lost ;  for  what 
advocate  of  tradition  is  able,  in  any  single  case,  to 
furnish  us  with  the  words  of  any  divine  revelation, 
which  is  not  contained  in  the  sacred  Scriptures  ? 

But  it  is  essential  to  the  credit  of  traditions,  that  it 
be  proved  clearly,  that  those  articles  of  religion,  or 
institutions  of  worship,  said  to  be  received  from  this 
source,  have  indeed  been  handed  down,  without  al- 
teration or  corruption,  from  Christ  and  his  apostles. 
It  is  not  sufficient  that  they  have  been  long  received, 
and  have  now  the  sanction  of  the  belief  and  practice 
of  the  whole  Catholic  church.  It  ought  to  be  shov/n, 
that  they  have  always,  from  the  very  days  of  the 
apostles,  been  received  with  universal  consent.  We 
know  that  the  church  has  undergone  many  vicissi- 
tudes ;  that  she  has  sometimes  been  almost  extirpated 
by  the  sword  of  persecution ;  has  been  overrun  with 
dangerous  errors ;  has  been  overwhelmed  with  the 
darkness  of  Gothic  ignorance ;  and  we  believe,  has 
greatly  apostatized  from  purity  of  doctrine  and  wor- 
ship ;  and  this  accords  with  the  prophecy  of  Paul, 
who  clearly  intimates  that  a  time  would  come, 
27 


314  THE   ROMISH   DOCTRIXE 

when  there  should  be  a  falling  away.  Now  it  may 
have  happened,  that  during  this  long  period  of  adver- 
sity, heresy,  darkness,  and  corruption,  many  things 
may  have  crept  in,  and  may  have  obtained  an  exten- 
sive and  firm  footing,  which  were  totally  unknown 
in  the  days  of  the  apostles,  or  in  the  primitive  church ; 
and  that  this  has  in  fact  occurred,  we  are  not  left  to 
conjecture.  It  is  a  matter  of  historical  record,  which 
cannot  be  disputed,  and  which  is  not  denied  even  by 
the  Romanists  themselves.  Who  that  is  not  insane 
with  prejudice,  could  persuade  himself  that  all  the 
opinions,  rites  and  ceremonies,  which  now  exist  in  the 
Romish  church,  were  prevalent  in  the  times  of  the 
apostles,  and  were  received  from  them  by  tradition  ? 

Besides,  there  is  a  multitude  of  other  things  re- 
ceived and  held  to  be  important  by  the  church  of 
Rome,  of  which  there  is  no  vestige  in  the  Scrip- 
tures, and  concerning  which  there  is  no  early  tradi- 
tion. Many  rules  and  ceremonies  which  have  been 
long  in  use,  can  be  traced  to  their  commencement 
at  a  period  much  later  than  that  of  the  apostles.  Now 
amidst  such  a  mass  of  traditions,  how  can  it'  be  as- 
certained which  have  come  down  from  Christ  and  his 
apostles  ?  Perhaps  we  shall  be  told,  that  the  infalli- 
ble head  of  the  church  can  determine  with  certainty 
what  we  ought  to  believe  and  practise ;  but  if  there 
be  on  earth  an  infallible  judge,  we  have  no  need  of 
traditions.  All  that  is  necessary  is,  for  this  person 
to  establish  his  claim  to  infallibility,  and  then  all  will 
be  as  much  bound  to  receive  his  decisions,  as  if  they 
were  expressly  written  in  the  holy  Scriptures.  On 
this  ground  the  controversy  between  the  Romanists 
and  Protestants  first  commenced.     The  defenders  of 


OE   UNWRITTEN   TEADITIOXS.  315 

the  old  system  appealed  to  the  authority  of  the  Pope, 
and  the  infallibility  of  the  church,  but  as  it  was  im- 
possible to  sustain  themselves  by  Scripture  on  these 
points,  they  found  it  very  convenient  to  have  recourse 
to  the  doctrine  of  unwritten  traditions,  which  they 
pretended  had  been  handed  down  from  Christ  and 
his  apostles.  Grant  them  this,  and  there  is  no  doc- 
trine, hoAvever  absui-d,  which  may  not  be  supported. 
Grant  them  this,  and  it  will  be  in  vain  to  appeal  any 
more  to  the  sacred  Scriptures  as  a  standard  of  truth; 
for  this  traditionary  law  not  only  inculcates  what  is 
not  found  in  the  Scriptures,  but  teaches  the  only  true 
interpretation  of  Scripture.  Traditions  may,  there- 
fore, be  considered  as  the  bulwark  of  the  Romish 
church.  Concede  to  them  the  ground  which  they 
assume,  and  the  whole  body  of  their  ceremonial  laws 
and  unscriptural  practices  is  safe.  For  as  they 
can  feign  what  traditions  they  please,  having  the 
keeping  of  them  entirely  in  their  own  hands,  they 
are  prepared  to  defend  every  part  of  their  system ; 
but  take  this  away  from  them,  and  their  defence  is 
gone.  Bring  them  to  the  ground  of  clear  scriptural 
testimony,  and  they  are  weak;  for  it  is  manifest 
that  the  Bible  knoAvs  nothing  of  their  monstrous  ac- 
cumulation of  superstitious  rites. 

The  council  of  Trent,  therefore,  early  in  their  ses- 
sions, made  a  decree  on  this  subject,  in  which,  after 
recognizing  the  Scriptures,  they  add:  "The  Holy 
Synod  receives  and  venerates  traditions  relating  both 
to  faith  and  manners,  as  proceeding  from  the  mouth 
of  Christ  himself,  or  as  dictated  by  the  Holy  Spirit, 
and  preserved  in  an  uninterrupted  succession  in  the 
Catholic  chui'ch,  with  ecj^ual  affection  and  reverence, 


816  THE   ROMISH   DOCTRINE 

as  the  -written  Scriptures!"  This  -was  the  first  decree 
of  the  fourth  session  of  this  famous  Council. 

Before  leaving  this  subject,  it  will  be  proper  to 
consider  some  of  the  other  arguments,  which  the  Ro- 
manists bring  forward  in  support  of  their  beloved 
traditions. 

And  the  first  is  imposing,  as  it  is  derived  from  the 
express  declarations  of  Scripture,  in  which  we  are 
exhorted  to  obey  traditions.  "Now  we  command  you, 
brethren,  in  the  name  of  our  Lord  Jesus,  that  ye  with- 
draw yourselves  from  every  brother  that  walketh  dis- 
orderly, and  not  after  the  tradition  which  he  received 
of  us."  *  Here  Paul  makes  express  mention  of  tradi- 
tion. And  in  the  preceding  chapter,  "  Therefore 
brethren  stand  fast  and  hold  the  traditions  which  ye 
have  been  taught  whether  by  w^ord,  or  our  epistle." 
Now  all  that  is  necessary  to  refute  the  argument  de- 
rived from  these  and  such  like  passages,  where  the 
word  traditions  is  used,  is  to  observe,  that  Paul  em- 
ploys this  word  in  a  very  extensive  sense,  to  signify 
whatever  doctrines  or  institutions  he  had  delivered  to 
the  churches,  whether  by  his  preaching  or  writing. 
And  in  the  verse  first  cited,  he  evidently  refers  to 
Avhat  he  had  said  to  them  in  his  first  epistle,  for  the 
words  following  are,  "  For  j^ourselves  know  how  ye 
ought  to  follow  us ;  for  we  behaved  not  ourselves  dis- 
orderly among  you ;  neither  did  we  eat  any  man's 
bread  for  nought,  &c."  Now,  this  tradition  which  he 
commanded  the  Thessalonians  to  obey,  was  contained 
in  tlie  former  epistle  addressed  to  them,  where  it  is 
said,  "  And  that  ye  study  to  be  quiet,  and  to  do  3^our 
own  business,  and  to  work  with  your  own  hands,  as  we 
*  a  Thcss.  iii  G,  7,  11, 15. 


OF    UNWRITTEN    TllADITIONS.  31T 

commanded  you."  1  Thess.  iv.  11.  And  in  the  quo- 
tation from  the  second  chapter,  it  is  clear,  that  by 
traditio7is,  the  apostle  did  not  mean  merely  oral  com- 
munications, for  he  explains  himself,  by  saying, 
*' whether  by  word  or  epistle."  It  is  not  denied,  that 
Paul  delivered  many  things  orally  to  the  churches,  as 
has  been  already  acknowledged.  All  the  instructions 
given  to  the  churches  first  planted,  were  oral,  for  as 
yet  no  gospels  nor  epistles  were  written ;  but  the  true 
point  in  dispute  is,  v/hether  any  article  of  faith,  or 
any  important  institution,  thus  originally  communi- 
cated, was  omitted,  when  the  books  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament were  written  by  divine  inspiration.  Whether, 
while  a  part  of  the  revelation  of  God,  for  the  use  of 
his  church,  was  committed  to  writing,  another  import- 
ant part  was  left  to  be  handed  down  by  tradition. 
That  the  word  tradition^  as  used  by  Paul,  makes  no- 
thing in  favour  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Romish  church, 
is  evident,  because  by  this  word  he  commonly  means 
such  things  as  were  distinctly  recorded  in  the  Scrip- 
tures. Thus,  in  his  first  epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  he 
says,  "For  I  delivered  unto  you  first  of  all,"  where 
the  word  for  transmitting  by  tradition,  is  used ;  but 
what  were  those  things  which  he  had  by  tradition 
communicated  to  them  ?  He  informs  us  in  the  next 
words,  "  How  that  Christ  died  for  our  sins  accordinor 
to  the  Scriptures,  And  that  he  was  buried,  and  that  he 
rose  again  the  third  day,  according  to  the  Scrip- 
tures." 1  Cor.  XV.  3,  4. 

It  is  manifest,  therefore,  that  the  argument  derived 
from  the  exhortation  of  Paul  to  obey  tradition,  is  but 
a  shadow,  and  vanishes  upon  the  slightest  touch  of  fair 
examination. 
27* 


318  THE   EOMISH   DOCTRINE 

2.  Their  next  and  principal  argument  is  derived 
from  the  frequent  declarations  of  the  early  Fathers 
in  favour  of  tradition.  Cyprian  refers  those  who 
might  be  in  douht  respecting  any  doctrine,  to  the  lioJi/ 
tradition  received  from  Christ  and  his  apostles ;  and 
Irem:eus,  as  cited  by  Eusebius,  says,  "  that  those 
things  which  he  heard  Polycarp  relate  concerning 
Christ,  his  virtues  and  his  doctrines,  which  he  had 
learned  from  converse  with  the  apostles,  he  had  in- 
scribed on  his  heart,  and  not  on  paper."  But  after 
a  few  sentences  he  informs  us  "that  all  which  he 
had  heard  from  them  was  in  accordance  with  the 
Scriptures,  (7tai"f a  crr^u^wm  racj  7pa<|)ai5.")  This  Sentence 
of  Irenaius  is  of  great  importance,  for  it  teaches  us 
how  the  Fathers  understood  this  subject.  They  re- 
ceived such  traditions  as  came  down  through  pious 
men  from  the  apostles,  but  they  compared  them  Avith 
the  Scriptures ;  even  then  the  Scriptures  were  the 
standard  by  which  all  traditions  must  be  judged. 
Ircnaius  insinuates,  plainly  enough,  that  if  what  he 
had  heard  from  Polycarp,  had  not  been  in  accordance 
with  the  Scriptures  he  would  not  have  considered  it 
as  deserving  attention. 

But  the  same  Irenscus  and  Tertullian  have  spoken 
in  still  stronger  terms  in  favour  of  tradition  in  tlioir 
controversies  with  heretics.  The  former,  in  the  third 
chapter  of  the  tliird  book  of  his  work  on  Heresies, 
says,  "The  tradition  of  the  apostles  is  manifest  in 
the  whole  world.  In  the  church  it  is  exposed  to  the 
view  of  all  who  are  willing  to  know  the  truth."  And 
in  tlie  fourth  chapter,  "  It  is  not  necessary  to  seek  the 
truth  from  others  which  can  easily  be  acquired  from 
»/he  church,  since  the  blessed  apostles  have  deposited 


OF   UNWEITTEN   TKADITIONS.  819 

in  her,  most  fully,  all  those  truths  which  are  needful, 
so  that  every  one  who  will  may  drink  of  the  water 
of  life.  This  is  the  true  door  of  life,  and  all  others 
are  thieves  and  robbers ;  them  we  should  avoid ;  but 
those  things  which  appertain  to  the  church  we  should 
delight  in  with  great  diligence,  and  should  lay  hold 
of  the  tradition  of  trutli.  For  what  if  the  apostles 
had  left  us  no  writings,  ought  we  not  to  follow  the 
order  of  traditions,  which  they  to  whom  the  churches 
were  committed  have  delivered  to  us  ?  To  which  in- 
stitution many  barbarous  nations  have  submitted,  hav- 
neither  letters  nor  ink,  but  having  the  tradition  of  the 
apostles  inscribed  on  their  hearts,  which  also  they 
follow." 

Tertullian,  in  his  work  concerning  "Prescriptions," 
says,  "  If  Christ  commissioned  certain  persons  to 
preach  his  gospel,  then  certainly  none  should  be  re- 
ceived as  preachers  except  those  appointed  to  office 
by  him.  And  as  they  preached  what  Christ  re- 
vealed unto  them,  what  they  taught  can  only  be 
known  by  applying  to  the  churches  which  the  apostles 
planted,  by  preaching  to  them,  whether  viva  voce,  or 
by  their  epistles.  Therefore,  all  doctrine  w^hich  agrees 
with  that  held  by  the  apostolical  churches  is  to  be 
considered  as  true  and  held  fjxst,  because  the  churches 
received  it  from  the  apostles,  the  apostles  from  Christ, 
and  Christ  from  God  ;  but  all  other  doctrine  which 
is  repugnant  to  that  received  by  the  churches  should 
be  rejected  as  false,  as  being  repugnant  to  that  truth 
taught  by  the  apostles,  by  Christ,  and  by  God." 

These  declarations  from  such  men  in  favour  of  tra- 
dition seem,  at  first  view,  to  be  altogether  favourable 
to  the  doctrine  of  the  church  of  Home ;  but  we  de- 


320  THE   ROMISH   DOCTRINE 

spair  not  of  being  able  to  convince  the  candid  reader, 
tliat  when  the  occasion  on  which  these  things  were 
said,  and  the  character  and  opinions  of  the  persons 
against  whom  these  Fathers  wrote  are  considered, 
their  testimony  instead  of  making  against  the  suffi- 
ciency of  the  Scriptures  will  be  found  corroborative 
of  the  opinions  which  we  maintain.  They  do  not 
appeal  to  tradition,  let  it  be  observed,  for  confirma- 
tion of  articles  of  faith  not  contained  in  the  Scrip- 
tures ;  but  the  doctrines  which  they  are  defending 
are  among  the  most  fundamental  contained  in  the 
New  Testament.  They  are  precisely  the  doctrines 
which  are  comprehended  in  the  Apostles'  Creed. 
Now,  to  appeal  to  tradition  for  the  confirmation  of 
such  doctrines  as  these,  never  can  be  of  any  force  to 
prove  that  other  doctrines  not  contained  in  the  Scrip- 
tures may  be  established  by  tradition.  But  it  may  be 
asked,  if  those  doctrines  concerning  which  they  dis- 
puted are  plainly  inculcated  in  the  New  Testament, 
why  have  recourse  to  tradition?  Why  not  appeal  at 
once  to  the  Scriptures  ?  To  Avhich  I  would  answer, 
that  Ircnoeus  does  little  else  in  the  third,  fourth,  and 
fifth  books  of  his  work  than  confirm  the  truth  by  a 
copious  citation  of  Scripture. 

Notliing  can  be  more  manifest,  therefore,  than  tliat 
the  matters  in  dispute  were  not  such  as  could  only 
be  proved  by  tradition,  but  they  were  such  truths  as 
lie  at  the  very  foundation  of  the  Christian  religion, 
and  to  record  which,  the  gospels  and  epistles  were 
written.  But  still  the  question  returns,  why  did  these 
Fatlicrs  appeal  for  proof  to  tradition,  when  they  had 
testimony  so  full  and  decisive  from  the  Scriptures  ? 
The   answer   to  this   question  will   show  us,  in   the 


OF   UNWRITTEN   TRADITIONS.  821 

clearest  manner,  that  the  views  of  Irengeus  and  Ter- 
tullian,  relative  to  the  Scriptures  and  to  traditions, 
were  such  as  are  now  held  by  Protestants,  and  that 
the  heretics  whom  they  opposed,  occupied  nearly  the 
same  ground  as  the  Romanists  now  do,  in  this  con- 
troversy. These  heretics  either  rejected  the  Scrip- 
tures as  being  an  insufficient  rule,  and  asserted  that 
they  were  not  competent  for  the  decision  of  such 
matters ;  or  they  so  corrupted  them,  that  it  was  use- 
less to  appeal  to  them  for  proof;  for  testimonies  de- 
rived from  the  genuine  Scriptures  they  would  not 
admit.  This  is  not  conjecture ;  for  Irenasus  has  ex- 
plicitly stated  the  case.  "When,"  says  he,  "they 
are  confuted  from  the  Scriptures  themselves,  they  al- 
lege that  they  are  not  correct,  or  not  of  authority, 
and  assert  that  they  speak  so  variously,  that  the  truth 
cannot  be  established  by  them  without  tradition ; 
for,  say  they,  it  was  handed  down,  not  by  letters,  but 
viva  voce.''  And  Tertullian  says,  "  This  heresy  does 
not  receive  some  parts  of  the  Scriptures ;  and  what 
they  do  receive  is  so  corrupted  by  additions,  or  de- 
tractions, to  suit  their  own  doctrine,  that  they  cannot 
be  said  to  receive  the  Scriptures  entire,  &c."  Again: 
"  They  pretend  that  the  apostles  did  not  wish  to  re- 
veal all  things  plainly,  for  while  they  made  known  cer- 
tain truths  to  all,  there  were  others  which  they  com- 
municated secretly,  and  to  a  few  persons,  which  they 
say  the  apostle  Paul  meant  by  the  depositum." 

From  these  quotations,  the  reason  why  these  Fa- 
thers had  recourse  to  traditions  is  most  manifest.  It 
was  the  only  ground  on  which  these  heretics  could 
be  met ;  for  they  denied,  (as  the  Romanists  now  do,) 
that   the    Scriptui'es   were    a    certain   and    sufficient 


322  THE    ROMISn    DOCTRINE 

standard  of  truth.  They  said  that  their  meaning 
could  not  be  ascertained  without  tradition ;  that  they 
were  defective ;  and  also,  that  there  were  some  parts 
which  they  did  not  acknowledge ;  and  they  held, 
moreover,  that  some  things  were  never  committed  to 
writing,  but  designedly  handed  down  by  tradition. 
"We  did  not,  indeed,  expect  to  find  the  exact  doctrine 
of  the  Romanists  respecting  the  Scriptures  and  tra- 
dition, at  so  early  a  period  of  the  church :  but  unfor- 
tunately for  their  cause,  the  persons  who  are  found 
agreeing  with  them  are  gross  heretics. 

It  is  now  easy  to  see  why  the  appeal  was  made 
by  the  Fathers  to  universal  tradition ;  and  they  show, 
that  in  their  day  tradition  and  Scripture  were  har- 
monious ;  and  that  if  the  apostles  had  written  no- 
thing, the  consent  of  all  the  churches  would  be  suffi- 
cient to  prove,  that  the  doctrines  which  they  defended 
w^ere  received  from  the  apostles.  Instead,  therefore, 
of  using  tradition,  as  the  Romanists  do,  to  prove  some 
doctrine  not  contained  in  the  Scripture,  they  used  it 
merely  to  confirm  the  truths  which  are  manifestly 
contained  in  the  New  Testament.  They  were  at  no 
loss  for  Scripture  testimonies  to  establish  these  truths, 
but  they  were  disputing  with  men  who  did  not  admit 
the  authority  of  the  Scriptures  to  be  decisive,  and 
tlicrefore  they  appeal  to  universal  tradition  in  support 
of  them.  It  is  said,  indeed,  by  Iren?cus,  that  many 
barbarous  nations  had  received  the  faith,  among 
whom  letters  and  writing  were  unknown.  They  must, 
therefore,  it  is  concluded,  have  received  it  from  tradi- 
tion. Very  good.  Just  as  heathen  tribes  now  re- 
ceive, from  those  missionaries  who  preach  the  gospel 
to  them,  a  short  summary  of  the  most  important  doc- 


OF   UNWRITTEN  TRADITIONS.  323 

trines  of  the  New  Testament.  The  truths  which  these 
barbarous  nations  received,  were  not  different  from 
those  contained  in  the  sacred  Scriptures,  but  the  very 
same,  taught  in  a  short  comprehensive  creed.  In 
fact,  we  have  here  the  true  origin  of  that  symbol  of 
doctrine,  commonly  called  the  Apostles'  Creed,  which 
was  a  summary  of  Christianity,  used  in  very  early 
times,  in  the  instruction  of  those  who  were  not  able  to 
read  the  New  Testament,  or  who  had,  as  yet,  no  ac- 
cess to  it.  There  are  extant  a  number  of  these  creeds, 
which  at  first  were  very  short ;  but  were  afterwards 
increased,  as  new  heresies  arose.  Bishop  Usher  found 
several  of  these  in  very  ancient  manuscripts,  all  of 
which  are  substantially  the  same  as  the  creed  called 
Hhe  Apostles'  Creed.'  That  Irenoeus  actually  re- 
ferred, in  the  passage  alluded  to,  to  these  elementary 
doctrines,  he  explicitly  informs  us ;  for,  immediately 
after  mentioning  these  barbarous  nations,  who  were 
destitute  of  "letters  and  ink,"  he  adds,  "Believing  in 
one  God,  the  maker  of  heaven  and  earth,  and  all 
things  which  are  therein ;  and  in  Jesus  Christ  the  Son 
of  God,  who  for  his  exceeding  great  love  to  his  crea- 
tures, submitted  to  be  born  of  a  virgin,  by  himself 
uniting  man  to  God ;  and  having  suffered  under  Pon- 
tius Pilate,  and  having  risen  again,  was  received  into 
heaven  ;  about  to  come  again  in  glory ;  the  Saviour 
of  those  who  are  saved,  and  the  judge  of  those  who 
are  judged ;  and  will  send  into  eternal  fire,  the  per- 
verters  of  the  truth,  and  the  despisers  of  his  Father, 
and  of  his  coming ;  which  barbarians,  if  any  one 
should  announce  to  them  the  doctrines  invented  by 
heretics,  stopping  their  ears,  they  would  fly  far  away 
from  them.     Thus,  the  ancient  apostolical  tradition 


324  THE   ROMISH    DOCTRINE 

does  not  sanction  those  monstrous  opinions  inculcated 
by  heretics." 

In  the  second  chapter  of  the  first  book  of  the  same 
work,  Irengeus  describes  the  apostolical  doctrine, 
thus :  "  The  church,  planted  by  the  apostles  and  their 
disciples  throughout  the  whole  world,  even  to  the  ends 
of  the  earth,  receives  the  same  faith ;  which  is,  in  one 
God  Almighty,  the  Father,  who  made  heaven  and 
earth,  the  sea,  and  all  things  which  are  therein ;  in 
one  Jesus  Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  incarnate  for  our 
salvation ;  and  in  the  Holy  Spirit,  who  by  the  pro- 
phets, predicted  the  good  will  of  God ;  his  advent ; 
his  generation  of  a  virgin  ;  his  passion,  and  resurrec- 
tion from  the  dead ;  and  the  ascension  in  the  flesh  of 
our  beloved  Lord  Christ  Jesus  ;  and  his  coming  again 
from  heaven,  in  the  glory  of  his  Father,  as  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ ;  our  God,  Saviour,  and  King ;  before 
whom,  according  to  the  good  pleasure  of  the  Father 
invisible,  every  knee  shall  bow,  of  things  in  heaven 
and  things  in  earth,  and  things  under  the  earth,  and 
every  tongue  shall  confess  the  justice  of  his  judgments 
towards  all,  when  he  will  send  wicked  spirits,  fallen 
and  apostate  angels,  and  blaspheming  men,  into  eter- 
nal fire  ;  but  the  just  and  upright  who  have  kept  his 
precepts,  and  persevered  in  his  love,  some  indeed  from 
tlie  beginning,  and  others  as  having  received  the  gift 
of  repentance,  he  will  surround  Avith  eternal  gh)ry. 
This  faith,  the  church  spread  over  the  whole  world, 
diligently  keeps,  as  if  she  inhabited  one  house,  and  be- 
lieves in  it,  as  if  possessing  but  one  soul  and  one  heart; 
and  in  accordance  with  the  same,  she  teaches  and 
preaches,  as  with  one  mouth.  Although  the  lan- 
guages which  are  in  the  world  are  different,  yet  there 


OF   UNWRITTEN  TRADITIONS.  825 

is  one  and  the  same  tradition.  Neither  do  the 
churches  which  are  founded  in  Germany  believe  dif- 
ferently from  those  in  Italy,  nor  from  those  which 
are  in  Egypt,  or  in  Libya,  or  in  the  middle  of  the 
world.  But  as  the  sun  is  one  and  the  same  through 
the  whole  world,  so  the  light  and  preaching  of  the 
truth,  everywhere  shines,  and  illuminates  all  men, 
who  are  willing  to  come  to  the  knowledge  of  the 
truth,"  &c. 

This  then  is  the  apostolical  tradition,  of  which  these 
Fathers  speak  in  such  high  terms  :  not  any  secret  doc- 
trine, never  committed  to  writing ;  not  any  articles  of 
faith,  or  rites  of  worship,  of  which  no  vestige  can  be 
found  in  the  Bible ;  but  the  plain,  prominent,  funda- 
mental doctrines  of  the  Christian  religion :  the  very 
doctrines  contained  in  the  Apostles'  Creed.  That  the 
preaching  of  the  gospel  preceded  the  circulation  of  the 
Scriptures  we  admit,  but  this  preaching  we  insist  and 
have  proved,  contained  nothing  different  from  that 
wdiich  is  written  in  the  gospels  and  epistles. 

Tertullian  speaks  to  the  same  purpose,  and  fur- 
nishes us  with  another  summary  of  the  common  faith 
of  primitive  Christians  ;  "  The  rule  of  faith,"  says  he, 
"  is  that  by  which  it  is  believed,  that  there  is  no  more 
than  one  God,  and  no  other  beside  the  Creator  of  the 
world,  who  produced  all  things  out  of  nothing,  by  his 
Word,  first  of  all  sent  forth,  which  Word  is  called  his 
Son ;  was  seen  under  different  forms  by  the  patriarchs ; 
was  always  heard  by  the  prophets ;  and  finally,  by 
the  Spirit  and  power  of  God,  being  conceived  by  the 
Virgin  Mary,  became  flesh  in  her  womb.  Jesus 
Christ  having  thus  become  man,  published  a  new  law, 
and  a  new  promise  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven ;  was 
28 


326  THE   ROMISH   DOCTRINE 

crucified ;  rose  again  the  tliird  day ;  was  canglit  \ip 
into  heaven ;  sat  down  on  the  right  hand  of  God  the 
Father  ;  sent,  as  his  substitute,  the  power  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  to  influence  those  who  believe ;  will  come  again 
in  glory  to  take  his  saints  to  the  fruition  of  eternal 
life  and  of  the  celestial  promises,  and  to  adjudge  the 
profane  to  eternal  fire ;  at  which  time,  there  will  be  a 
resuscitation  of  both  parts,  and  the  flesh  will  be  re- 
stored. This  rule  of  faith  was  instituted  by  Christ, 
and  is  questioned  by  none  but  heretics,  and  such  as 
teach  those  things  which  make  heretics."* 

These  are  the  apostolical  traditions  which  were 
universally  received ;  the  very  plainest  and  most 
fundamental  doctrines  of  the  Christian  religion, 
which  are  written  amply  in  every  gospel,  and  recog- 
nized fully  in  every  epistle.  Thus  far  then,  it  does 
not  appear  that  anything  was  left  to  unwritten  tra- 
dition, to  be  communicated  to  future  ages ;  for  those 
very  truths  which  were  at  first  delivered  orally  by  the 
apostles,  were  afterwards  recorded  by  inspiration ; 
and  when  the  preachers  of  the  gospel  inst-ructed  the 
ignorant,  who  were  unacquainted  with  letters,  they 
taught  them,  precisely,  but  in  a  summary  way,  what 
is  written  in  the  New  Testament. 

3.  Another  argument,  depended  on  by  the  advo- 
cates of  tradition,  is  derived  from  the  f;ict,  that  there 
are  some  doctrines,  not  expressly  mentioned  in  Scrip- 
ture, which  are  universally  inculcated  by  the  Fathers, 
which  all  true  Christians  have  received  as  articles  of 
faith,  in  all  succeeding  ages,  and  which  are  not  denied 
even  by  Protestants  themselves.  To  this  class  belong 
the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity ;  the  doctrine  of  the  Son 
*  Tcrtull.  De  Pracscriptionibus. 


OF   UNWRITTEN   TRADITIONS.  327 

being  of  the  same  substance  as  the  Father ;  the  deity 
of  the  Holy  Spirit ;  his  proceeding  from  the  Father 
and  the  Son :  the  two  natures  in  Christ  constituting 
one  person ;  the  baptism  of  infants ;  the  religious  ob- 
servance of  the  Lord's  day,  &c.  Now,  in  regard  to 
these  articles  of  religion,  we  observe,  that  although 
they  are  not  contained  in  Scripture,  in  so  many  words, 
they  may  be  derived  from  Scripture  by  legitimate  in- 
ference ;  and  conclusions  fairly  deduced  from  the 
declarations  of  the  word  of  God,  are  as  truly  parts  of 
divine  revelation,  as  if  they  were  expressly  taught  in 
the  sacred  volume.  All  the  articles  mentioned  above, 
are  capable  of  satisfactory  proof  from  Scripture  ;  and 
if  we  did  not  find  them  taught  there,  we  should  feel 
under  no  obligation  to  receive  them.  We  do  not  deny, 
however,  that  the  universal  consent,  and  uniform 
practice  of  the  primitive  church,  ought  to  have  great 
weight  in  confirming  our  faith  in  important  doctrines, 
and  in  satisfying  us  that  certain  things  not  explicitly 
mentioned  in  Scripture  were  practised  by  the  apostles. 
Although  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  and  the  essen- 
tial deity  of  the  Son  and  Holy  Spirit,  are  doctrines 
very  plainly  taught  in  the  New  Testament,  yet  in  a 
matter  of  such  vast  importance,  it  cannot  but  afford 
satisfaction  to  every  sincere  inquirer,  to  find  that  these 
doctrines  were  universally  believed  by  the  Fathers,  to 
be  taught  in  the  writings  of  the  apostles. 

And  although  there  are  principles  and  facts  re- 
corded in  the  New  Testament,  from  which  it  can  be 
fairly  concluded,  that  the  first  day  of  the  week  was 
set  apart  for  public  worship,  and  that  the  infants  of 
believers  were,  from  the  beginning,  baptized,  and  thus 
connected  with  the  visible  church ;  yet,  as  these  insti- 


328  THE   ROMISH   DOCTRINE 

tutions  are  not  so  expressly  included  in  Scripture,  as 
to  remove  all  uncertainty,  the  fact  of  their  universal 
observance,  in  the  primitive  church,  has,  deservedly, 
great  influence  in  convincing  us,  that  our  reasonings 
and  inferences  from .  Scriptural  principles  are  correct. 
But  why  should  we  be  required  to  receive  these  things 
merely  on  the  authority  of  tradition,  when  the  Fathers 
themselves  appealed  for  their  truth  to  the  infallible 
rule  contained  in  the  New  Testament  ?     Thus,  on  the 
subject  of  infant  baptism,  which  the  Romanists  pretend 
is  derived  solely  from  tradition,  we  find  the  Fathers 
appealing  not  only  to  universal  practice  and  apostoli- 
cal tradition,  but  frequently  to  the  words  of  Scripture, 
in  which  they  believed  that  the  practice  was  implicitly 
authorized.      Irenaeus,   Origen,   Augustine,   Cyprian, 
Ambrose,  and  Chrysostom,  do  all  appeal  to  Scripture, 
when  treating  this  subject,  although  they  do,  indeed, 
lay  great  stress  on  the  derivation  of  this  practice  from 
the  apostles  by  undoubted  tradition.     It  is  not  de- 
nied, however,  that  after  some  time  an  undue  defer- 
ence was  paid  to  traditions.     It  will  be  shown  here- 
after, that  many  were  misled  from  the  simplicity  of 
the   gospel   by  this   very   means.     By   yielding   too 
ready  an  assent  to  traditions,  they  were  led  to  adopt 
false  opinions,  some  of  which  were  directly  repugnant 
to  the  written  word.     It  can  have  no  weight  with  us, 
therefore,    to    adduce   such   a   writer   as   Epiphanius 
extolling  tradition ;  for  it  can  be  proved,  that  from 
this    source    he    imijibed   many   foolish    notions,   and 
fabulous  stories,  wliich  the  more  impartial  among  the 
Romanists  are  as  far  from  receiving  as  we  are.     Nor 
do  we  feel  bound,  on  this  subject,  to  adopt  all  the 
Opinions  anywhere  found  in  the  writings  of  Origen, 


OF   UNWRITTEN   TRADITIONS.  329 

Basil,  Augustine,  &c. ;  for  we  are  persuaded,  that 
this  was  one  of  the  errors  of  antiquity,  and  that  it 
was  prolific  of  numerous  evils,  by  which  the  church 
of  God  became  greatly  corrupted  in  after  times. 
But  it  answers  no  purpose  to  the  Bomish  church  to 
plead  these  authorities ;  for  they  themselves  do  not 
receive  as  articles  of  faith  or  parts  of  divine  worship, 
all  that  these  Fathers  derived  from  tradition.  The 
principle  of  Protestants  ever  has  been,  that  the  Scrip- 
tures contain  all  things  necessary  to  guide  the  faith 
and  practice  of  believers ;  and  they  feel  under  no 
obligations  to  receive  any  article  of  religion,  which 
cannot  be  proved  to  be  contained  in  the  sacred 
volume.  If,  in  the  explanation  of  Scripture,  light 
can  be  derived  from  tradition,  or  the  universal  opi- 
nion or  practice  of  the  primitive  church,  they  are 
very  willing  to  avail  themselves  of  it,  as  they  are  to 
derive  aid  from  any  other  quarter :  but  since  they  are 
convinced  that  the  Fathers  were  fallible  men,  and 
actually  fell  into  many  mistakes,  it  would  be  folly  to 
build  their  faith  on  their  opinions,  much  more  to 
adopt  their  errors,  knowing  them  to  be  such.  "  The 
Bible  is  the  Beligion  of  Protestants." 

The  fact  is,  that  the  Fathers  generally  depended 
on  Scripture  for  the  proof  of  their  doctrines ;  and 
called  in  the  aid  of  tradition,  only  to  confirm  the  doc- 
trines which  they  derived  from  the  Avritten  word. 
And  here  it  is  important  to  remark,  that  tradition,  in 
the  earlier  and  purer  times  of  the  church,  was  a  very 
difi'erent  thing  from  what  it  is  now.  Men  who  lived 
within  one  or  two  hundred  years  of  the  apostles,  had 
an  opportunity  of  ascertaining  their  opinions  and 
practices  from  tradition,  with  a  degree  of  certainty 
28* 


380  THE    ROMISH    DOCTRINE 

"U'hicli  is  utterly  unattainable  after  the  lapse  of  ages 
of  error  and  darkness.  If  it  should  be  agreed,  to  re- 
ceive as  apostolical  everything  which  the  early  Fa- 
thers professed  to  have  received  by  tradition  from 
the  apostles,  yet  it  would  be  most  unreasonable  to  be 
required  to  admit  as  divine,  the  monstrous  mass  of 
traditions  held  by  the  Romish  church,  which  has  been 
accumulating  for  ages. 

But  it  is  capable  of  the  clearest  proof,  that  great 
uncertainty  attended  all  matters  received  by  tradition, 
which  were  not  contained  in  Scripture,  even  in  those 
times  that  were  nearest  to  the  days  of  the  apostles. 
This  fact  is  manifest,  in  the  case  of  Papias,  w^ho  was 
contemporary  with  the  last  of  the  apostles  ;  and  of 
Clement  of  Alexandria,  who  lived  in  the  second  cen- 
tury. If  then  tradition  was  so  uncertain,  at  its  very 
source,  who  can  place  any  confidence  in  this  channel 
of  communication,  after  it  has  been  increasing  in  im- 
purity for  seventeen  hundred  years  ?  If  the  stream 
had  even  been  pure  in  its  commencement,  it  would, 
by  this  time,  have  become  so  turbid,  and  so  poisoned, 
that  no  dependence  could  be  placed  in  the  information 
conveyed  by  it.  But  where  certain  things  are  said 
to  have  been  received  by  tradition  from  the  apostle 
John,  at  second  hand,  it  was  deemed  important  to 
verify  them,  by  a  comparison  w^ith  the  Scriptures,  as 
wc  have  already  seen.  How  unreasonable  then  is  the 
demand,  that  we  should  now  receive  all  traditions, 
which  have  come  down  to  us,  without  any  test  of  their 
genuineness,  or  any  comparison  of  them  with  the 
oracles  of  God  ! 

Here  also  it  is  necessary  to  observe  that  there  is 
a  wide  distinction  to  be  made  between  articles  of  faith 


OF    UNWRITTEN    TRADITIONS.  331 

and  institutions  of  worship  which  are  obligatory  on 
all,  and  such  modes  of  worship  as  were  adopted  under 
the  general  rule  of  "  doing  all  things  decently  and  in 
order,"  or  from  notions  of  expediency,  with  a  view  of 
conciliating  those  that  were  without.  It  may  be 
proved,  indeed,  from  the  writings  of  the  Fathers  that 
many  things  of  this  kind  existed,  which  they  never 
thought  of  placing  on  a  level  with  the  faith  received 
from  the  apostles.  And  it  may  be  here  remarked, 
that  it  was  one  of  the  first  and  greatest  mistakes  into 
which  the  church  fell,  after  inspiration  ceased,  to  make 
too  free  a  use  of  this  doctrine  of  expediency.  The 
abuses  which  have  crept  in  under  this  specious  dis- 
guise were  not  foreseen.  The  Fathers  saw  no  harm 
in  an  indiiferent  ceremony  to  which,  perhaps,  their 
new  converts  were  attached  from  long  custom.  By 
adopting  things  of  this  kind,  the  church  which  was  at 
first  simple  and  unincumbered  with  rites,  became 
strangely  metamorphosed  ;  and  in  place  of  her  simple 
robe  of  white,  assumed  a  gorgeous  dress  tricked  off 
with  gaudy  ornaments  and  various  colours.  This 
practice  of  inventing  new  ceremonies  went  on  increas- 
ing until,  in  process  of  time,  the  burdensome  ritual  of 
the  Levitical  law  was  not  comparable  to  the  liturgy  of 
the  Christian  church.  Who  that  now  attends  a 
Eomish  chapel  on  some  high  day,  would  suppose  that 
the  service  performed  was  connected  with  the  religion 
of  the  New  Testament  ? 

It  is  of  no  consequence,  therefore,  to  adduce  testi- 
monies of  the  Fathers  of  the  second,  third,  and  fourth 
ages  of  the  Christian  church,  to  show  that  such  cere- 
monies were  then  in  use  in  some  particular  part  of  the 
church ;  or  even  in  the  church  universal.     All  know 


332  THE    ROMISH    DOCTRIXE 

by  Avliat  means  these  things  were  received  and  obtained 
prevalence.  But  let  it  be  kept  in  memory  that  the 
Fathers  do  not  assert  that  these  usages  were  derived 
from  the  apostles ;  nor  do  they  pretend  that  they  were 
necessary ;  and  accordingly  we  find  that  in  different 
countries  they  were  not  the  same. 

4.  I  come  now  to  consider  the  last  argument  for 
unwritten  traditions  which  I  have  been  able  to  dis- 
cover. It  is  this,  that  without  the  aid  of  tradition 
the  Scriptures  will  be  of  no  real  benefit  to  us,  because 
it  is  only  by  this  means  that  we  can  arrive  at  their 
true  meaning.  And  it  is  alleged  that  the  Fathers 
in  all  disputes  with  heretics,  when  they  referred  to 
Scripture,  still  appealed  to  universal  tradition  for 
a  true  exposition  of  the  meaning  of  the  passages 
adduced. 

In  returning  an  answer  to  this  argument  I  would 
observe,  that  should  we  even  grant  all  that  is  con- 
tended for,  it  would  not  be  a  concession  of  the  main 
point  in  controversy.  The  claim  of  the  Romanists, 
so  unblushingly  advanced  in  the  decree  of  Trent 
already  cited  is,  "  That  traditions  relating  both  to 
faith  and  manners,  are  to  be  received  with  equal  affec- 
tion and  reverence  as  the  canonical  Scriptures." 
And  lest  we  should  be  at  any  loss  to  know  what  arti- 
cles of  faith  are  pretended  to  be  received  by  tradition 
alone,  Peter  a  Soto,  one  of  the  great  defenders  of 
tlic  decrees  of  the  Council  of  Trent,  and  a  member 
of  that  Council,  explicitly  declares,  "  That  the  rule 
is  infallible  and  universal ;  that  whatever  things  the 
Romish  church  believes  and  holds,  which  are  not 
contained  in  the  Scriptures,  are  to  be  considered  as 
derived  from  the  apostles;  provided  the  observances 


OF    UNWRITTEN   TRADITIONS.  333 

cannot  be  traced  to  any  certain  origin  or  author." 
Everything  in  use  in  this  church,  of  the  commence- 
ment of  which  we  are  ignorant,  must  be  ascribed  to 
the  apostles  without  doubt,  and  without  further  proof ! 
And  then  he  descends  to  particular  doctrines  and 
rites  which,  according  to  this  sweeping  rule,  we 
must  receive  as  handed  down  by  tradition  from  the 
apostles.  Among  these  are  "  the  oblation  of  the 
sacrifice  of  the  altar,  unction  with  chrism  or  the 
holy  oil,  invocation  of  saints,  the  merit  of  good 
works,  the  primacy  of  the  Roman  pontifi",  the  con- 
secration of  the  water  in  baptism,  the  sacrament  of 
confirmation,  of  orders,  of  matrimony,  prayers  for 
the  dead,  extreme  unction,  auricular  confession,  and 
satisfaction,"  &c.  But  beside  these  there  are  innu- 
merable other  things  which  are  held  sacred  by  the 
Komish  church  which  cannot  be  proved  from  Scrip- 
ture, such  as  the  mutilation  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  the 
celibacy  of  the  clergy,  the  distinction  of  meats,  pur- 
gatory, pilgrimages,  indulgences,  the  worship  of  im- 
ages and  relics,  the  canonization  of  saints,  &c.  Now, 
she  cannot  pretend  that  all  these  were  received  from 
the  apostles,  for  some  of  them  are  in  direct  repug- 
nance to  the  plain  declarations  of  Scripture ;  and  the 
occasion  of  the  introduction  of  some  of  them  is  matter 
of  history,  as  is  acknowledged  by  the  Romanists  them- 
selves. And  surely  it  is  not  a  very  convincing  argu- 
ment of  the  apostolical  origin  of  doctrines  or  cere- 
monies, that  we  do  not  know  when  they  took  their 
rise. 

But  the  argument  now  under  consideration  relin- 
quishes this  ground,  and  goes  back  to  the  Scriptures  as 
the  foundation  of  faith,  but  insists  that  the  true  inter- 


3o4:  THE    ROMISn    DOCTRINE 

prctatlon  of  Scripture  can  only  be  known  bj  tradition. 
On  wliicli  we  remark: 

That  many  things  in  Scripture  are  so  clear  that 
they  stand  in  need  of  no  interpretation.  They  are 
already  as  plain  as  any  exposition  can  make  them. 
"Who  wants  tradition  to  teach  him  that  Christ  is  the 
Son  of  God;  was  born  of  the  virgin  Mary;  w^as 
crucified  under  Pontius  Pilate,  rose  again  the  third 
day,  and  ascended  to  heaven,  whence  he  will  come 
again  to  judge  the  world  ?  If  we  cannot  understand 
the  plain  declarations  of  Scripture,  neither  could  we 
understand  an  exposition.  If  we  cannot  know  what 
the  apostles  and  evangelists  mean  in  their  plainest 
declarations  when  we  have  their  very  words  before 
us,  how  shall  we  know  what  is  the  meaning  of  the 
vague  language  of  tradition  ? 

There  are  many  parts  of  the  New  Testament  of 
which  tradition  has  handed  down  no  interpretation. 
If  we  wish  to  know  their  meaning,  it  is  in  vain  that 
we  apply  to  the  Fathers  for  instruction.  They  are 
silent.  They  have  not  commented  on  these  books 
and  passages.  To  which  of  the  Fathers  shall  I  go 
for  an  exposition  of  the  book  of  llevelation  ?  Or  will 
the  Pope  himself,  aided  by  all  his  cardinals,  or  by 
an  oecumenical  council,  undertake  to  give  us  the  true 
interpretation  of  this  prophecy?  It  cannot  be  true 
that  Scripture  can  be  interpreted  only  by  tradition ; 
unless  we  agree  to  give  up  a  large  part  of  the  New 
Testament  as  wholly  incapable  of  being  understood. 

We  cannot  build  our  faith  on  the  interpretation  of 
the  Fathers,  in  all  cases,  because  they  often  fall  into 
palpable  mistakes,  which  is  not  denied  by  the  Roman- 
iiits  themselves;  and  again,  they  differ  among  them- 


OF   UNWKITTEN   TEADITIONS.  335 

selves.  How  then  can  it  be  known  what  that  in- 
terpretation is,  which  was  received  from  the  apos- 
tles ?  Must  I  follow  Justin,  or  iRENiEUS,  or  Cle- 
ment of  Alexandria  ?  or  must  I  believe  in  all  the 
allegorical  interpretations  contained  in  the  Homilies 
of  Origen,  according  to  which,  the  plainest  passages 
are  made  to  mean  something  perfectly  foreign  from 
the  literal  sense  ?  If  the  tradition  which  brings  down 
this  interpretation,  is  not  found  in  the  writings  of  the 
Fathers,  where  is  it  ?  And  how  has  it  come  down  ? 
Surely  that  which  was  never  mentioned  nor  recorded 
by  the  ancient  church,  ought  not  to  be  received  as  an 
apostolical  tradition  ;  for,  as  the  great  Chillingworth 
says,  "A  silent  tradition  is  like  a  silent  thunder,"  a 
thing  inconceivable.  But  we  shall  be  told,  that  the 
church  has  preserved  this  deposit,  and  can  testify  that 
it  was  derived  from  the  apostles.  What  church  ? 
And  where  is  her  testimony  ?  And  how  do  we  know 
that  among  such  a  mass  of  traditions,  some  have  not 
crept  in,  which  originated  in  other  sources  than  the 
teaching  of  Christ  and  his  apostles  ?  Who  kept  these 
traditions  securely  vrhen  the  church  was  overrun  with 
Gothic  ignorance  and  barbarism  ?  Who  kept  this 
treasure  unadulterated,  when  Arianism  was  predomi- 
nant ?  If  there  be  such  an  oral  law,  containing  au 
exposition  of  Scripture,  how  has  it  happened  that  there 
have  existed  such  dissensions  about  doctrine  in  the 
Romish  church  itself?  And,  as  it  is  acknowledged, 
that  many  usages  of  the  church  have  had  their  origin, 
long  since  the  apostles'  days,  what  authority  is  there 
for  these  innovations  ?  If  the  authority  of  the  church 
was  sufficient  to  establish  these,  it  could  as  easily  es- 
tablish all  the  rest,  and  there  is  no  need  of  apostolical 


336  THE    ROMISH    DOCTRINE 

tradition :  but  if  there  is  a  distinction  to  be  made  be- 
tween observances  derived  from  the  apostles,  and  such 
as  have  been  invented  by  men,  how  can  we  draw  the 
line  between  them  ? 

An  implicit  believer  in  the  infallibility  of  the  Pope, 
would  deem  it  sufficient  to  answer,  that  his  holiness 
at  Rome  knows  certainly  what  is  apostolical,  and 
what  not ;  what  is  obligatory  and  what  not.  All 
we  have  to  do,  is  to  believe  what  he  believes,  or  what 
he  tells  us  to  believe.  Now,  without  disputing  the 
pretensions  of  the  bishop  of  Rome  to  such  extraordi- 
nary knowledge,  at  present,  I  would  ask,  if  we  must 
go  to  an  infallible  judge  to  learn  what  are  apostolical 
traditions,  what  use  is  there  in  traditions  ?  Why  does 
not  this  infallible  teacher  declare  at  once  what  is 
truth  in  all  cases,  without  the  trouble  of  searching 
into  antiquity  after  traditions,  w^hich  never  can  be 
found  ? 

But  if  it  be  alleged  that  the  traditions  which  ought 
to  be  received  as  the  rule  of  our  faith,  are  such 
as  were  universal,  and  concerning  which  there  can- 
not be  any  doubt,  I  answer,  that  many  such  tradi- 
tions may  indeed  be  found,  but  what  do  they  respect  ? 
Those  very  doctrines  which  are  most  plainly  and 
frequently  inculcated  in  Scripture,  and  of  which  we 
need  no  exposition ;  for,  as  was  said  before,  they  are 
expressed  as  perspicuously  as  any  exposition  can  be. 
But  it  affords  us  satisfaction  to  find  the  church  openly 
professing,  from  the  beginning,  those  truths  which 
we  find  recorded  in  Scripture.  If  it  does  not  add 
confirmation  to  our  faith  in  these  points,  it  gives  us 
pleasure  to  find  such  a  luirmony  in  the  belief  of  true 
Christians. 


OF   UNWRITTEN   TRADITIONS.  337 

Finally,  it  is  dangerous  to  rely  upon  traditions. 
Heretics  in  all  ages  sheltered  themselves  under  this 
doctrine.  Those  with  whom  Tertullian  contended, 
alleged  that  the  apostles  did  not  know  every  thin  o- 
necessary,  as  Christ  declared  he  had  many  things  to 
say,  which  they  could  not  bear  yet ;  or  there  were 
some  things  which  they  did  not  teach  publicly,  nor 
commit  to  writing,  but  communicated  privately  to  a 
few  chosen  persons,  and  therefore  they  declined  the 
authority  of  Scripture.  The  same  is  true  of  those 
against  whom  Irenaeus  wrote.  They  appealed  from 
Scripture  to  tradition,  and  he  answers  them  by  show- 
ing that  universal  tradition  was  conformable  to  Scrip- 
ture. 

Eusebius  informs  us  that  Artemon,  who  asserted 
that  Christ  was  a  mere  man,  pretended  that  he  had 
learnt,  from  tradition^  that  all  the  apostles  were  of  his 
opinion.*  Thus  also  Clement  of  Alexandria  says, 
^'  that  Basilides  gloried  in  having  received  his  doc- 
trine through  a  few  hands  from  Peter ;  and  Valenti- 
nus  boasted  of  having  been  instructed  by  one  who  had 
been  a  disciple  of  Paul."f  The  Marcionites  professed 
to  have  received  their  doctrines  from  Matthew.  The 
Arians,  as  appears  by  an  oration  against  them  by 
Athanasius,  appealed  to  tradition  for  the  confirmation 
of  their  tenets.  In  fact,  this  doctrine  of  unwritten 
traditions  has  been  justly  compared  to  Pandora's  box, 
which  is  calculated  to  fill  the  world  with  evils  and  he- 
resies. But  not  only  have  heretics  availed  themselves 
of  this  corrupt  fountain,  but  good  men  have  been  de- 
ceived by  lending  too  credulous  an  ear  to  traditions. 

Papias  one  of  the  hearers  of  John  the  apostle,  was 
*  Liber  v.  c.  28.  f  Strom,  xiii. 

29 


338  THE  ROMisn  docthixe 

a  great  collector  of  traditions.  lie  was  inquisitive  to 
know  what  each  of  the  apostles  had  at  any  time 
said ;  and  there  was  some  chance  at  coming  at  the 
truth  from  oral  tradition,  by  one  who  was  a  hearer 
of  one  of  the  apostles.  But  what  valuable  informa- 
tion did  this  good  man  obtain  by  all  his  inquiries, 
which  is  not  in  Scripture  ?  Let  Eusebius  answer, 
*'  Papias  adopted  many  paradoxical  opinions,  by 
giving  heed  to  unwritten  traditions,(7tapa5o(yfio5  aypaq)ov) 
and  received  certain  strange  parables  of  our  Saviour, 
mixed  with  fabulous  things,  among  which  was  the 
error  of  the  Chiliasts ;  by  which  many  other  excel- 
lent men  were  deceived,  paying  too  much  deference 
to  antiquity  and  unwritten  traditions.  Even  such 
men  as  Irenagus,  Apollinarius,  Tertullian,  Victorinus, 
and  Lactantius,  were  misled  by  these  ancient  tradi- 
tions, so  that  they  adopted  an  opinion  for  which  there 
is  no  foundation  in  sacred  Scripture,  and  not  only 
so,  but  which  is  repugnant  to  the  doctrine  of  Christ 
and  his  apostles."* 

Clement  of  Alexandria,  too,  than  whom  no  man  of 
the  ancient  church  was  more  celebrated,  speaks  of 
certain  persons  who  had  taken  much  pains  to  pre- 
serve the  sayings  of  the  apostles  handed  down  by 
tradition,  among  whom  he  mentions  a  Hebrew  who  is 
supposed  to  be  Papias ;  but  when  he  comes  to  tell 
us  what  he  had  learned  from  these  unwritten  tradi- 
tions which  is  not  contained  in  Scripture,  it  amounts 
to  this,  "  That  there  was  a  public  doctrine  and  a 
secret  doctrine  ;  the  one  exoteric,  and  the  other  es- 
oteric;  that  the  former  was  committed  to  writing,  and 
was  in  the  hands  of  all ;  but  the  latter  was  communi- 
*  The  reference  is  to  tlie  JVIillcnnarian  doctrine. 


OF    UNWRITTEN    TRADITIONS.  339 

cated  secretly  to  chosen  disciples.  And  if  we  may 
judge  of  the  secret  doctrine  handed  down  by  tra- 
dition from  some  specimens  of  it  which  he  had  learned, 
we  will  not  appreciate  unwritten  traditions  very  highly 
in  comparison  with  the  written  word.  Among  these 
is  the  opinion  that  the  Greek  philosophy  answered 
the  same  purpose  as  the  law  of  Moses,  and  was  a 
schoolmaster  to  bring  those  that  professed  it  to 
Christ ;  that  this  philosophy  as  well  as  the  law  of 
Moses  was  able  to  justify  men,  and  that  there  were 
many  ways  of  obtaining  life.  From  the  same  tra- 
dition he  teaches  that  Christ's  ministry  was  finished 
in  one  year,  which  opinion  Irenasus  ascribes  to  heretics, 
and  declares  it  as  a  tradition  from  John  that  Christ, 
when  he  was  crucified,  was  nearly  fifty  years  of  age. 
Clement  relates  it  as  a  tradition,  "■  That  the  apostles 
after  their  death,  went  and  preached  to  the  dead,  who 
descended  with  the  apostles  into  a  place  of  water,  and 
then  came  up  alive,"  and  many  other  like  things.* 

There  is  much  reason  to  believe  that  the  corruption 
of  the  church,  which  commenced  about  this  time,  was 
owing  to  a  disposition  which  began  to  be  indulged 
of  lending  too  credulous  an  ear  to  traditions,  and  to 
apocryphal  writings. 

But  among  the  Fathers  no  one  gave  himself  up 
so  entirely  to  unwritten  traditions  and  apocryphal 
fables  as  Epiphanius.  His  writings  abound  with 
things  of  this  kind ;  but  who  would  assert  that  we 
are  bound  to  receive  these  stories  as  articles  of  faith  ? 
Even  the  Romish  church  with  all  her  store  of  legends, 
will  not  receive   as  true   and   necessary  all   that  is 

*  Strom,  lib.  II. 


340  THE    EIBLE   A    COMPLETE    RULE 

handed  do^Yn  by  tradition  from  one  and  another  of  the 
Fathers. 

From  T\hat  has  been  said,  therefore,  the  conclu- 
sion is  clear  that  the  Scriptures  are  complete  with- 
out unwritten  traditions  ;  that  no  articles  of  faith,  nor 
institutions  of  worship,  concerning  which  the  Scrip- 
tures are  silent,  have  come  down  to  us  by  tradition ; 
that  we  have  uniform,  universal  tradition  on  those 
points  which  are  plainly  taught  in  Scripture ;  that 
many  things  pretended  to  have  been  received  from 
the  apostles  by  tradition  cannot  be  traced  to  them, 
and  that  many  other  things  made  equally  necessary 
by  the  Romish  church,  can  be  proved  to  have  origi- 
nated many  hundred  of  years  since  the  death  of  the 
apostles.  It  has  been  also  shown  that  there  is  no 
certain  method  of  distinguishing  between  what  is 
apostolical,  and  what  has  been  derived  from  other 
sources,  unless  we  make  the  Scriptures  our  standard ; 
that  tradition  cannot  be  our  guide  even  in  interpret- 
ing Scriptures ;  and  finally,  that  tradition  has  been 
the  common  refuge  of  heretics,  and  has  greatly  mis- 
led good  and  orthodox  men,  by  inducing  them  to 
adopt  wild  theories,  fabulous  stories,  and  paradoxical 
opinions,  some  of  which  are  directly  repugnant  to 
Scripture. 

The  traditions  of  the  Romish  church  stand  on  no 
higher  ground  than  the  traditions  of  the  Scribes  and 
Pharisees  in  the  time  of  our  Saviour ;  but  he  rejected 
these  traditions  as  having  no  authority,  and  as  making 
void  the  law  of  God.  "  Why  do  ye,"  saj3  Clirist, 
*'  also  transgress  the  commandment  of  God  by  your 
tradition  ?  Tlius  have  ye  made  the  commandment  of 
God  of  none  eflfect  by  your  tradition."  Matt.  xv.  3 — G. 


OF   FAITH   AND    PRACTICE.  841 

*'  Howbeit,  in  vain  do  they  worship  me,  teaching  for 
doctrines  the  commandments  of  men."  Mark  vii.  7. 
The  same  questions  and  reproofs  may  with  equal  pro- 
priety be  addressed  to  the  Pope,  and  the  doctors 
of  the  Romish  church.  But,  say  we,  ''  To  the  law 
and  to  the  testimony ;  if  they  speak  not  according  to 
these,  it  is  because  there  is  no  light  in  them."  Isaiah 
viii.  20. 

Thus  have  we  brought  this  work  to  a  close,  and  it 
affords  us  pleasure  to  believe  that  most  who  read  these 
pages  will  be  convinced  that  the  Bible  is  a  coinplete 
Tule^  both  of  faith  and  practice.  "  The  law  of  the  Lord 
is  perfect."  Psa.  xix.  What  a  treasure  have  we  in  the 
Old  and  New  Testament !  Here  God  speaks  to  us  by  his 
''lively  oracles."  The  way  of  life  is  delineated  so  dis- 
tinctly, that  the  wayfaring  man,  though  a  fool,  shall  not 
err  therein.  We  have,  indeed,  "  a  sure  word  of  prophecy 
to  which  ye  do  well  that  ye  take  heed  as  to  a  light  shin- 
ing in  a  dark  place  until  the  day  dawn,  and  the  day 
star  arise  in  your  hearts."  2  Pet.  7 — 19.  There  is 
nothing  lacking  to  him  that  is  in  possession  of  the 
Scriptures  ;  for  "  all  Scripture  is  given  by  inspiration 
of  God,  and  is  profitable  for  doctrine,  for  reproof,  for 
correction,  for  instruction  in  righteousness:  that  the 
man  of  God  may  be  perfect,  thoroughly  furnished  unto 
all  good  works."  2  Tim.  iii.  16,  17. 

Let  us  then  be  grateful  to  God,  and  give  him  un- 
ceasing thanks  for  this  precious  deposit  which  he  has 
committed  to  his  church,  and  which,  by  his  Provi- 
dence, he  has  preserved  uninjured  through  all  the 
vicissitudes  through  which  she  has  passed.  Let  us 
praise  God  that  in  regard  to  us,  that  night  of  dark- 
ness is  past  in  which  there  was  a  famine,  not  of  bread, 
29* 


342  THE    BIBLE    A    COMPLETE    RULE,    &C. 

nor  of  water,  but  of  tlie  word  of  the  Lord ;  when  the 
light  of  this  brilliant  lamp  was  put  out,  or  rather  "  put 
under  a  bushel,"  and  the  feeble  erring  light  of  tradi- 
tion was  substituted  in  its  place.  Let  us  be  glad  and 
rejoice  that  we  have  lived  to  see  the  day  when  copies 
of  the  Bible  are  multiplied,  and  when  many  run  to 
and  fro  to  circulate  them ;  and  let  us  wait  in  assured 
hope  for  the  day  when  "  the  knowledge  of  the  Lord 
shall  cover  the  earth  as  the  waters  cover  the  sea. 
Even  so,  come  Lord  Jesus.     Amen." 


APPENDIX. 


NOTE  A.     (Page  39.) 


FIRST   DECREE   OF   THE   FOURTH     SESSION    OF   THE   COUNCIL 
OF   TRENTj    A.    D.    1546. 

"  The  holy  oecumenical  and  general  Council  of  Trent,  legiti- 
mately convened  in  the  Holy  Spirit,  under  the  presidency  of 
three  legates  of  the  Apostolic  see,  constantly  proposing  this 
before  all  things,  that  all  errors  being  taken  away,  the  gospel  in 
its  purity  may  be  preserved  in  the  Church,  which  was  promised 
before  by  the  prophets  in  the  holy  Scriptures,  but  which  was  pro- 
mulgated by  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  with  his 
ovvn  mouth ;  moreover,  he  commanded  it  to  be  preached  to  every 
creature  by  his  apostles,  as  the  fountain  of  all  saving  truth  and 
moral  discipline :  which  truth  and  discipline  he  provided  should 
be  contained  in  the  books  of  Scripture,  and  in  unwritten  tradi- 
tions^ received  from  the  mouth  of  Clirist  by  the  apostles,  or  from 
the  apostles  speaking  by  the  inspiration  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and 
handed  down  to  us ;  therefore  this  Synod,  following  the  example 
of  the  orthodox  Fathers,  receives  and  venerates  with  equal  pious 
affection  and  reverence,  all  the  books  both  of  the  Old  and  New 
Testament  (for  one  God  is  the  author  of  both:)  likewise  those 
traditions  relating  to  faith  and  manners,  which  were  received 
from  the  mouth  of  Christ  himself,  or  from  his  inspired  apostles, 
and  which  have  been  preserved  in  an  uninterrupted  succession  in 
the  Catholic  Church.  Moreover,  this  Synod  judges  it  proper  to 
give  a  catalogue  of  the  sacred  books,  lest  any  doubt  should  arise 
in  the  minds  of  any  respecting  the  books  received  by  them,  the 
names  of  which  are  here  inserted  in  this  decree :  viz.  the  five 
books  of  Moses — Genesis,  Exodus,  Leviticus,  Numbers,  Deuter- 
onomy. Next,  Joshua,  Judges,  Ruth,  four  books  of  Kings,  two 
of  Chronicles,  two  of  Ezra,  viz.  the  first  and  the  second,  which  is 
called  Nehemiah,  Tobit,  Judith,  Esther,  Job,  CL  Psalms  of 
David,  Proverbs  of  Solomon,  Ecclesiastes,  Song  of  Songs,  Wis- 
dom, Ecclesiasticus,  Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  Baruch,  Ezekiel,  Daniel, 
Twelve  Minor  Prophets,  viz.  Hosea,  Joel,  Amos,  Obadiah,  Jonah, 
Micah,  Nahum,  HabaUkuk,  Zephaniah,  Haggai,  Zechariah, 
Malachi,  tw^o  of  Maccabees,  first  and  second.  Of  the  New  Tes- 
tament, the  four  gospels,  viz.  Matthew,  Mark,  Luke,  John;  the 

(343) 


344  APPENDIX. 

Acts  of  the  Apostles,  written  by  Luke  the  Evangelist;  fourteen 
epistles  ot  the  blessed  apostle  Paul,  viz.  to  the  Komans;  to  the 
Corinthians,  two;  to  the  Galatians  ;  to  the  Kphcsians  ;  to  the 
Philippians;  to  the  C'olossians ;  to  the  Theshalonians,  two;  to 
Timothy,  two;  to  Titus;  to  riiilonion  ;  to  the  Hebrews.  Ot  the 
apostle  Peter,  two;  of  the  apostle  John,  three;  of  Jatiies,  one; 
of  the  apostle  Juile,  one;  the  Apocalypse  of  John  the  apostle. 

'^  But  if  any  one  sliall  not  receive  as  canonical  and  sacred  ail 
these  books,  with  all  their  parts,  as  they  are  used  to  be  read  in 
the  Catholic  Church,  and  are  contained  in  tlie  old  Vulgate  Latin 
edition;  or  shall  knowingly  and  intentionally  contemn  any  of  the 
aforesaid  traditions,  let  him  be  anathema. 

''  Hence  all  may  understand  in  what  order  and  way  the  Synod, 
after  laying  the  foundation  of  the  Confession  of  their  Faitli,  will 
proceed;  and  what  testunonies  and  prools  they  will  especially  use 
in  confirming  doctrines,  and  in  the  reformation  of  manners  in  the 
church." 


NOTE  B.     (Page  53.) 

EXTRACT    tKOyi   AUGUSTINE    "  DE  DOCTRINA    CHRISTIANA," 
LIB.    III.    CAP.    8. 

Sed  nos  ad  tertium  gradum  ilium  considerationem  refera- 
jnus,  de  quo  disserere  quod  Dominus  suggesserit  atque  traclare 
institnimus.  Erit  igitur  divinarum  scripturarum  soiertissirnus 
itidaiiator,  qui  primo  tolas  Icgcrit,  notasque  habuerit,  etsi  non 
dnm'  inlellectu,  jam  tamen  lectione,  duntaxat  eas  qua;  appel- 
lantur  canonical.  Nam  casteras  securius  leget  fide  veritatis  in- 
btructus,  ne  pra30ccupent  imbecillem  animum,  et  periculosis 
mendaciis  atque  phantasmatibus  eludenles  j)rfeju(iicent  aliquid 
contra  sanam  intelligentiam.  In  canonicis  autem  scripturis  Ec- 
clesiarum  catholicarum  quamplurium  authorilatem  sequalur,  inter 
quas  sane  ilte  sunt  qu»  Apostolicas  sedes  habere  et  epistolas 
accipere  meruerunt.  Teriebit  igitur  hunc  modum  in  scripturis 
canonicis,  ut  eas  qua3  ab  omnibus  accipiuntur  Ecclesiis  catho- 
licis,  pra^ponat  eis  (}uas  qua:>dam  non  accipiunt.  In  eis  vero  qiia3 
non  accipiuntur  al)  omnibus,  prnjionat  eas  ([uas  plures  gjavior- 
escjue  accn])i)int,  eis  (juas  pauciores  minoriscjue  autlioritalis  Ec- 
clesia",  tenent.  Si  autem  alias  invcnerit  a  pluribus,  alias  a  gravior- 
ibus  haberi,  quanciuam  hoc  invenire  non  possit,  a^qualis  tamen 
autlioritatis  eas  halx-ndas  puto.  Totiis  autem  canon  scrijiturarum 
JM  (|uo  istani  considerationem  versandam  dieinius,  his  libiis  conti- 
netnr.  QuiiKpie  .Moyseos,  id  est  Genesi.  Exodo,  Levitico,  ]\u- 
meris,  Deuteronomio,  et  uno  libro  lesu  Nave,  uno  Judicum,  uno 
libello  cpii  appellatur  Hulh,  qui  mngis  ad  regnorum  principia  vi- 
detur  pertinere.  Deinde  (piatuor  Regum  et  duohus  Para- 
lipomenon,  non  eonseciuentibus,  sed  quasi  a  latere  atijunctis  si- 
nndciue  ])ergentibus.  Ha-c  est  historia  qua^  sibimet  annexa 
tempora  continet,  atque  ordinem  rerun).  Sunt  alia;  tanquam  ex 
diverso  ordine,  (lua^  neqne  hnic  ordini,  ne(iue  inter  sc  comiect- 
uutur,  bicut  est  Job  et  Tobias  ct   Hester  ct  Judith   ct  Mac- 


APPENDIX.  345 

eahaeorum  libri  duo,  et  Esdras  duo,  qui  magis  subsequi  videntur 
ordinatarn  illam  historiam,  usque  ad  Regnorum  vel  Paralipome- 
noa  terminatam.  Deinde  Prophetae,  in  quibus  David  unus  liber 
Psalmorum  et  Salomonis  tres,  Proverbiorum,  Cantica  cantico- 
rum,  et  Ecclesiastes.  JNam  illi  duo  libn,  unus  qui  Sapientia, 
ct  alius  qui  Ecclesiaslicus  inscribitur,  de  quadam  siinilitudine 
Salomonis  esse  dicuntur.  Nam  Jesus  filius  Sirach  eos  scripsisse 
constantissime  perhibetur  Qui  tameu  quoniam  in  authoritatem 
recipi  meruerunt,  inter  Proplieticos  numerandi  sunt.  Reliqui 
sunt  eorum  libri  qui  proprie  Prophetae  appellati  sunt,  du- 
odecim  Prophetarum  libri  singuli ;  qui  connexi  sibimet,  quo- 
niam nunquam  sejuncti  sunt  pro  uno  habentur.  Quorum  pro- 
phetarum nomina  sunt  hasc,  Osee,  Joel,  Amos,  Abdias,  Jonas,  Mi- 
ch'dBas,  Naum,  Abacuk,Sophonias,  Aggseus,  Zacharias,  Malachias. 
Deinde  quatuor  Prophetae  sunt  majorum  voluminum,  Esaias, 
Ilieremias,  Daniel,  Ezechiel.  His  quadragintaquatuor  libris  vete- 
ris  testamenti  terminatur  authoritas.  Novi  autem  quatuor  libris 
Evangelii  secundum  Matthteum,  secundum  Marcum,  secundum 
Lucam,  secundum  Joannem  ;  quatuordecim  Epistolis  Pauli  Apos- 
toli,  ad  Romanos,  ad  Corinthios  duabus,  ad  Galatas,  ad  Ephesios, 
ad  Philippenses,  ad  Thessalonicenses  duabus,  ad  Colossenses, 
ad  Timotheum  duabus,  ad  Titum,  ad  Philemonem,  ad  Hebra?os, 
Petri  duabus,  tribus  Joannis,  una  Judae,  et  una  Jacobi,  Actibus 
Apostolorum  libro  uno,  et  Apocalypsis  Joannis  libro  uno. 


NOTE  C.     (Page  123.) 

PASSAGE    FROM    TERTULLIAN. 

The  original  of  this  passage  is  as  follows;  "Age  jam,  qui  vo- 
les curiositatem  melius  exercere  in  negotio  salutis  tu«  percurre 
Ecclesias  apostolicas,  apud  quas  ipsae  adhuc  cathedrae  praesident. 
apud  quas  ipsae  authenticce  litercE  eorum  recitantur,  souantes  vo- 
cem,  et  repra-sentantes  faciem  uniuscujuscunque.  Proxima  est 
tibi  Achaia?  habes  Corinthum.  Si  nou  longe  es  a  Macedonia, 
habes  Philippos,  habes  Thessalonicenses.  Si  potes  Asiam  tendere, 
habes  Ephesum.  Si  autem  Italian  adjaces,  habes  Romam  unde 
nobis  quoque  auctoritas  praesto  est." — De  Prcescrip.  cap.  36. 


NOTE  D.    (Page  131.) 

PASSAGE     FROM     EUSEBIUS. 

The   Order  of  the   Gospels. 

Let  us  now  also  show  the  undisputed  writings  of  the  same  apostle, 
[Jolin.]  And  of  these  his  gospel,  so  well  known  in  the  churches 
throughout  the  world,  must  first  of  all  be  acknowledged  as  genuine. 
That  il  is,  however,  with  good  reason,  placed  the  fourth  in  order  by 


346  APPENDIX. 

the  ancients,  may  be  made  evident  in  the  following  manner.   Those 
inspired  and  truly  pious  men,  the  apostles  of  Christ,  as  they  were 
ino^t  pure  in  their  lite,  and  adorned  with  every  kind  of  virtue  in 
tlieir  minds,  but  unskilled  in  language,  relying  upon  the  divine 
and  wonderful  energy  granted  them  by  the  Saviour,  neither  knew 
how   nor  attempted  to  propound  the  doctrines  of  their  master, 
wiih  the  art  and  refinement  of  composition.     But  employing  only 
the  demonstration  of  the  divine  Spirit,  working  with  them,  and 
tlie  wonder-working  power  of  Christ,  displayed  through  them, 
tliey  proclaimed  the  knowledge  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven  through- 
out the  world.     'J'hey  bes(ov\'ed  but  little  care  upon  the  study  of 
style,  and  this  they  did  because  they  were  aided  by  a  co-operation 
greater  than  that  of  men.     Paul,  indeed,  wlio  was  the  most  able 
of  all  in  tlie  preparations  of  style,  and  who  was  most  powerful  in 
sentiments,  committed  nothing  more  to  writing  than  a  (ew  very 
short  epistles.     And  this  too,  although  he  had  innumerable  mys- 
terious matters  that  he  miglit  have  communicated,  as  he  had  at- 
tained even  to  the  view  of  the  third  heavens,  had  been  taken  up 
to  the  very  paradise  of  God,  and  had  been  honoured  to  hear  the 
unutterable  words  there.     The  other  followers  of  our  Lord  were 
also  not  ignorant  of  sucli  things,  as  the  twelve  apostles,  and  the 
seventy  disciples,  together  with  many  others ;  yet  of  all  the  dis- 
ciples, Matthew  and  John  are  the  only  ones  that  have  left  us  re- 
corded comments,  and  even  they,  tradition  says,  undertook  it 
from  necessity.     Matthew  also  having  first  proclaimed  the  gospel 
in  Hebrew,  when  on  the  point  of  going  also  to  other  nations,  com- 
mitted it  to  writing  in  his  native  tongue,  and  thus   supplied  the 
want  of  his  presence  to  them  by  his  writings.     But  after  Mark 
and  Luke  had  already  published  their  gospels,  they  say  that  John, 
who  during  all   this    tune  was  proclaiming   the  gospel  without 
writing,  at  length  proceeded  to  write  it  on  the  following  occasion. 
7'he  three  gospels  previously  written,  having  been  distributed 
among  all,  and  also  handed  to  him,  they  say  that  he  admitted  them, 
giving  his  testimony  to  their  truth  ;  but  that  there  was  only  v/ant- 
ing  in  the  narrative  the  account  of  the  things  done  by  Christ, 
among  the  first  of  his  deeds,  and  at  the  commencement  of  the 
gospel.     And  this  was  the  truth.     For  it  is  evident  that  the  otlier 
three  evangelists  only  wrote  the  deeds  of  our  Lord  for  one  year 
after  the  imprisonment  of  John  the  Baptist,  and  intimated  this  in 
the  very  beginning  of  tlieir  history.    For  after  the  fasting  of  forty 
days,  and  theconsc(iuent  temptation,  Matthew  indeed  specifies  the 
time  of  his  history,  in  these  words  :  "  But  hearing  that  John  was  de- 
livered up,  he  returned  from  Judea  into  Galilee."     Mark  in  like 
manner  writes  :  "  But  after  John  was  delivered  up,  Jesus  c;ime  in- 
to (ialiiee."    And  Luke,  before  he  commenced  the  deeds  of  Jesus, 
in  much  tlie  same  way  designates  the  time,  saying,  "  Herod  thus 
added   yet   this    wickedness  above  all  he   had   committed,  that 
lie  shut  up  John  in  prison."     For  these  reasons  the  apostle  John, 
it  is  said,  being  entreated  to  undertake  it,  wrote  the  account  of 
the  time  not  recorded   by  tlie   lormer  evangelists,  and  the  deeds 
done  by  our  Saviour,  which  they  have  passed  by,  (for  these  were 
the  events  that  occurred  befcjre  the  im])risonmcnt  of  John,)  and 
this  very  fact  is  intimated  by  him,  when  he  says,  "  this  beginning 
of  mira<;les  Jesus  made  ;"  and   tlien  proceeds  to  make  mention 
©('  the  Baptist,  in  the  midst  of  our  Lord's  deeds,  as  John  was  at 


APPENDIX.  347 

that  time  "baptizing  at  ^^Llnon  near  Salim."  He  plainly  also 
shows  this  in  the  words,  "  John  was  not  yet  cast  into  prison." 
Tlie  apostle,  therefore,  in  his  gospel,  gives  the  deeds  of  Jesus  be- 
fore the  Baptist  was  cast  into  prison,  but  the  other  three  evange- 
lists mention  the  circumstances  after  that  event.  One  who  at- 
tends to  these  circumstances  can  no  longer  entertain  the  opinion, 
that  the  gospels  are  at  variance  witii  each  other,  as  the  gospel  of 
John  comprehends  the  first  events  of  Christ,  but  the  others,  the 
history  that  took  place  at  the  latter  part  of  the  time.  It  is  pro- 
bable, therefore,  that  for  these  reasons  John  has  passed  by  in 
silence  the  genealogy  of  our  Lord,  because  it  was  written  by 
Matthew  and  Luke,  but  that  he  commenced  with  the  doctrine  of 
the  divinity,  as  a  part  reserved  for  him  by  the  divine  Spirit,  as  if 
for  a  superior.  Let  this  suffice  to  be  said  respecting  the  gospel 
of  John.  The  causes  that  induced  Mark  to  write  his  have  already 
been  stated.  But  Luke  also  in  the  commencement  of  his  narra- 
tive, premises  the  cause  which  led  him  to  write,  showing  tliat 
many  others,  having  rashly  undertaken  to  compose  a  narration 
of  matters  that  he  had  already  completely  ascertained,  in  order 
to  free  us  from  the  uncertain  suppositions  of  others,  in  his  own 
gospel,  he  delivered  the  certain  account  of  those  things,  that  he 
himself  had  fully  received  from  his  intimacy  and  stay  with  Paul, 
and  also  his  intercourse  with  the  other  apostles.  But  this  may 
suffice  respecting  these.  At  a  m.ore  proper  time  we  shall  endea- 
vour also  to  state,  by  a  reference  to  some  of  the  ancient  writers, 
what  others  have  said  respecting  the  sacred  books.  But  besides 
the  gospel  of  John,  his  first  epistle  is  acknowledged  without  dis- 
pute, both  by  those  of  tlie  present  day,  and  also  by  the  ancients. 
The  other  two  epistles,  however,  are  disputed.  The  opinions  re- 
specting the  Revelation  are  still  greatly  divided.  But  we  shall,  in 
due  time,  give  a  judgment  on  this  point  also  from  the  testimony 
of  the  ancients. 


The  Sacred  Scriptures  achnoidedgecl  as  genuine^  and  tJiose 
that  are  not. 

This  appears  also  to  be  the  proper  place  to  give  a  summary 
statement  of  the  books  of  the  New  Testament  already  mentioned. 
And  here,  among  the  first,  must  be  placed  the  holy  quaternion  of 
the  gospels  ;  these  are  followed  by  "the  book  of  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles:"  after  this  must  be  mentioned  the  epistles  of  Paul, 
which  are  followed  by  the  acknowledged  first  epistle  of  John,  as 
also  the  first  of  Peter,  to  be  ailmitted  in  like  manner.  After  these 
are  to  be  placed,  if  proper,  the  Revelation  of  John,  concerning 
which  we  shall  offer  the  different  opinions  in  due  time.  These-  then, 
are  acknowled<ied  as  genuine.  Among  the  disputed  books,  although 
they  are  well  known  and  approved  by  many,  is  reputed  that  called 
theepistlesofJam.es  and  Jude;  also  the"  Second  Epistle  of  Peter," 
and  those  called  "the  Second  and  Third  of  John,"  whether  they 
are  of  the  evangelist  or  of  some  other  of  the  same  name.  Among 
the  spurious  must  be  numbered  both  the  books  called  "  the  Acts 
of  Paul"   and  that   called  "Pastor,"   and  "the  Revelation   of 


348  ArPENDix. 

Peter."  Besides  these,  the  books  called  "  the  Epistle  of  Barna- 
bas," and  what  are  called  '*the  Institutions  of  the  Apostles." 
Moreover,  as  I  said  before,  if  it  shotihi  appear  right,  "  the  Reve- 
lation of  John,"  which  some,  as  before  said,  reject,  but  others 
rank  among  the  genuine.  But  there  are  also  some  who  number 
among  tiicse  the  gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews,  with  which 
those  of  the  Hebrews  that  have  received  Christ  are  particularly 
delighted.  These  may  be  said  to  be  all  concerning  which  there 
is  any  dispute.  We  have,  however,  necessarily  subjoined  here  a 
catalogue  of  these  also,  in  order  to  distinguish  those  that  are  true, 
genuine,  and  well  'authenticated  writings,  from  those  others  which 
are  not  only  not  embodied  in  the  Canon,  but  likewise  disputed, 
notwithstanding  that  they  are  recognized  by  most  ecclesiastical 
writers.  Thus  we  may  have  it  in  our  power  to  know  both  these 
books,  and  those  that  are  adduced  by  the  heretics  under  the  name 
of  the  apostles,  such,  viz.,  as  compose  the  gospels  of  Peter,  Tho- 
mas and  Matthew,  and  others  beside  them,  or  such  as  contain  the 
Acts  of  the  Apostles,  by  Andrew,  and  Jolin,  and  otliers,  of  which 
no  one  of  those  writers  in  the  ecclesiastical  succession  lias  con- 
descended to  make  any  mention  in  his  works;  and  indeed  the 
character  of  the  style  itself  is  very  ditTerent  from  that  of  the 
apostles,  and  the  sentiments,  and  the  purport  of  those  things  that 
are  advanced  in  them,  deviating  as  far  as  possible  from  sound 
orthodoxy,  evidently  proves  they  are  the  fictions  of  heretical 
men  ;  whence  thev  are  to  be  ranked  not  only  among  the  spurious 
writings,  but  are  to  be  rejected  as  altogether  absurd  and  impious. 
Eccles.  Hist.  lib.  in.  cap.  xxiv.  xxv. 


NOTE  E.     (Page  163.) 

GOSPEL   OF   THE   NAZARENES. 

There  is  no  apocryphal  book  of  the  New  Testament  which  has 
been  so  much  spoken  of,  both  by  the  ancients  and  moderns,  as 
the  gospel  of  the  Nazarenes  By  some,  not  only  of  the  Roman- 
ists, but  also  of  the  Protestants,  it  has  been  exalted  very  nearly 
to  an  e(|uality  witli  tlie  canonical  books  of  the  New  Testament. 
It  seems  necessary,  therclore,  to  examine  its  claims  with  more 
attention  than  is  requisite  in  the  case  of  other  books  of  this 
class. 

This  gospel  was  known  among  the  ancients  under  several  dif- 
ferent titles.  It  was  sometimes  called  "the  gospel  according  to 
the  twelve  apostles  ;"  "  the  gosjiel  of  Bartholomew  ;"  '•'•  the  gospel 
ac<:ording  to  the  Hebrews;"  "the  gospel  of  the  F.bionites,"  Xir, 

It  is  the  opinion  of  some  that  this  is  the  gosi)el  to  wliich  P;:ul 
alludes.  Gal.  i.  (5,  where  he  speaks  of  "another  gospel."  How- 
ever this  may  be,  if  we  credit  P^isebius,  we  must  believe  that  it 
existed  as  early  as  the  begimiing  of  the  second  century;  for  he 
rej)resents  Hegesippus  as  writing  some  things  concerning  "the 
gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews  and  Syrians." 

*  Ecc.  Hist.  lib.  iv.  p.  58. 


APPENDIX.  349 

Clement  of  Alexandria*  cites  from  it  the  following  passage  : 
"  He  who  admii-es  shall  reign,  and  he  who  reigns  sliull  be  at 
ease  " 

Origen  speaks  of  it  in  this  manner,  "  If  any  one  will  receive 
tlie  gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews,  in  which  our  Saviour  says, 
*  Tl)e  Holy  Ghost  my  motiier  lately  took  me  by  one  of  my  hairs, 
and  led  me  to  the  great  mountain  of  Thabor.'  "  And  in  another 
place,  "  It  is  written  in  a  certain  gospel,  which  is  entitled  accord- 
ing to  the  Hebrews,  Uf  any  one  be  pleased  to  receive  it,  not  as  of 
authority,  but  only  for  illustration  of  the  present  question,)  ^  A  cer- 
tain rich  man  said  to  Christ,  What  good  thing  shall  I  do  that  I 
may  inherit  life?  He  said  to  him,  C)  man,  keep  the  law  and  the 
prophets;  he  answered  him.  That  I  have  done.  He  said  to  him, 
Go  sell  all  things  that  thou  hast,  and  distribute  among  the  poor, 
and  come  and  follow  me.  The  rich  man  hereupon  began  to 
scratch  his  head,  and  was  displeased.  And  the  Lord  said  unto 
him,  How  can  you  say  that  you  have  kept  the  law  and  the  pro- 
phets, seeing  it  is  written  in  the  law,  Thou  shalt  love  thy  neigh- 
bour as  thyself;  but  behold,  many  of  thy  brethren,  children  of 
Abraham,  are  clothed  with  nastiness,  and  ready  to  perish  for 
hunger,  while  thy  home  abounds  with  all  sorts  of  delicacies,  and 
nothing  is  sent  out  of  it  to  them.  And  turning  about,  he  said  to 
his  disciple  Simon,  who  sat  by  him,  Simon,  son  of  Joanna,  it  is 
easier  for  a  camel  to  pass  through  the  eye  of  a  needle,  than  for  a 
rich  man  to  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven.'  "f 

Eusebius,  speaking  of  apocryphal  and  spurious  books,  says, 
*'  In  this  number  some  have  placed  the  gospel  according  to  the 
Hebrews,  with  which  they  of  the  Jews  who  profess  Christianity 
are  very  much  delighted."  And  speaking  of  the  Ebionites,  he 
says,  "  They  made  use  only  of  that  which  is  called  the  gospel  ac- 
cording to  the  Hebrews,  very  little  esteeming  any  others. ";(: 

Epiphanius  has  left  several  testimonies  respecting  this  gospel, 
among  which  are  the  following :  "  The  jNazarenes  have  the  gospel 
of  Matthew  most  entire  in  the  Hebrew  language ;  for  this  is  still 
preserved  among  them,  as  it  was  at  first,  in  Hebrew  characters, 
but  I  know  not  whether  they  have  taken  away  the  genealogy 
from  Abraham  to  Christ. 

In  another  place,  speaking  of  the  Ebionites,  he  says,  "  They 
also  receive  the  gospel  according  to  Matthew.  For  this  both 
they  and  the  Corinthians  make  use  of,  and  no  other.  They  call 
it  the  gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews;  for  the  truth  is,  that 
Matthew  is  the  only  one  of  the  New  Testament  writers  who  pub- 
lished his  gospel  and  preaching,  in  the  Hebrew  language  and 
Hebrew  characters." 

And  again,  "  In  that  gospel  which  they  (the  Ebionites)  have 
called,  according  to  St.  Matthew,  which  is  not  entire  and  perfect, 
but  corrupted  and  curtailed,  and  which  they  call  the  Hebrew 
gospel,  it  is  written,  •  That  there  was  a  certain  man  called  Jesus, 
and  he  being  about  thirty  years  of  age,  made  choice  of  us.  And 
coming  to  Capernaum,  he  entered  into  the  house  of  Simon  called 
Peter,  and  opening  his  mouth,  said,  When  I  passed  by  the  lake 
of  Tiberias,  I  chose  John  and  James  the  sons  of  Zebedee,  and 

*  Strom,  lib.  ii.  p.  380.  f  Horn,  in  Jerem. 

X  Ecc.  nist.  lib.  ill.  c.  25,  27. 
30 


350  APPENDIX. 

Simon  and  Andrew,  and  Thaddcus,  and  Simon  Zelotes,  and  Judas 
Iscariot,  and  tliee  IMaUhew,  sitting  at  the  receipt  of  custom,  I 
called,  and  thou  didst  loUow  me.  1  will  therefore  that  ye  be  my 
twelve  apostles,  for  a  testimony  to  Israel.'  ....  The  meat 
of  John  the  Baptist,  according  to  this  gospel,  was  wild  honey, the 
taste  of  which  was  like  manna,  or  as  cakes  made  with  honey  and 
oil.  Thus  they  cliange  the  true  account  into  a  falsehood,  and  lor 
locusts  put  cakes  made  with  oil  and  honey."  "  The  beginning 
of  the  gospel  was  this,  '  It  came  to  pass  in  Ihe  days  of  Herod,'  " 
&c.  After  relating  the  baptism  of  Christ,  as  it  is  recorded  in  the 
other  gosj)el,  except  that  it  asserts,  that  the  voice  from  heaven 
saying,  '■  This  is  my  beloved  Son,'  &c.,  was  repeated,  it  goes  on  to 
say,  '  That  hereupon  John  fell  down  before  him,  and  said,  O  Lord, 
1  pray  thee  baptize  me ;  but  he  hindered  him,  saying  that  it  is  fit 
that  all  these  things  should  be  fulfilled.'  "  See,"  says  Epiphanius, 
"  how  their  false  doctrine  appears  everywhere  ;  how  all  things  are 
imperfect,  disordered,  and  without  any  truth!"  So  also  Cerin- 
thns  and  Carpocratcs,  using  this  same  gospel  of  theirs,  would 
prove  tliat  Christ  proceeded  from  the  seed  of  Joseph  and  Mary."* 
liut  the  testimony  of  Jerome  respecting  this  gospel  is  the  most  full. 
*'  Matthews  also  called  Levi,"  says  he,  "  who  became  from  a  pub- 
lican an  apostle,  was  the  first  who  composed  a  gospel  of  Christ, 
and  for  the  sake  of  those  who  believed  in  Christ  among  the  Jews, 
wrote  it  in  the  Hebrew  language  and  letters,  but  it  is  uncertain 
who  translated  it  into  Greek.  Moreover,  the  Hebrew  copy  is  to 
this  time  preserved  in  the  library  of  Csesarea,  which  Pamphilus 
the  martyr  with  much  diligence  collected.  The  Nazarenes,  who 
live  in  Beroea,  a  city  of  Syria,  and  made  use  of  this  volume, 
granted  me  the  favour  of  writing  it  out.  In  which  gospel  there 
is  this  observable,  that  wherever  the  evangelist  either  cites  him- 
self, or  introduces  our  Saviour  as  citing,  any  passage  out  of  the 
Old  Testament,  he  does  not  follow  the  translation  of  the  LXX, 
but  the  Hebrew  copies,  of  which  there  are  these  two  instances, 
viz.  '  Out  of  Egypt  have  I  called  my  Son  ;'  and,  '  He  shall  be 
called  a  Nazarene.' "  This  testimony  is  found  in  Jerome's  life 
of  Matthew.  And  in  his  life  of  James  we  find  the  following  ac- 
count. "  The  gospel  also,  which  is  called  according  to  the  He- 
brews, and  which  I  lately  translated  into  Greek  and  Latin,  and 
which  Origcn  often  used  relates,  '  That  after  our  Saviour's  re- 
surrection, when  our  Lord  had  given  the  linen  cloth  to  the  priest's 
servant,  he  went  to  James  and  appeared  to  him  ;  for  James  had 
sworn  that  he  would  not  eat  bread  from  that  hour  in  wliich  he 
drank  the  cup  of  the  Lord,  till  he  should  see  the  Lord  risen  from 
the  dead.  And  a  little  after  the  Lord  said,  '  Bring  the  table  and 
the  bread  ;'  and  then  it  is  added,  '  He  took  tlic  bread  and  blessed 
il,  and  brake  it,  and  gave  it  to  James  tiie  Just,  and  said  to  him, 
My  brother,  eat  thy  bread,  for  the  Son  of  man  is  risen  from  the 
dead.'  " 

And  in  a  work  against  Pelagius,  he  says,  "In  the  gospel  ac- 
cording to  the  Hebrews,  which  is  written  in  the  Chaldo-Syriac 
language,  which  the  Nazarcncs  use,  and  is  that  according  to  the 
twelve  apostles,  or  as  most  think,  according  to  ]\Tatthew,  which  is 
in  the  library  of  Csesarea,  there  is  the  following  history ;  '  Behold 

*  Epiph.  Hacrea. 


APPENDIX.  351 

the  mother  and  brethren  of  Christ  spake  to  him ;  John  the  Bap- 
tist baptizes  for  the  remission  of  sins ;  let  us  go  and  be  baptized 
of  him.  He  said,  In  what  have  I  sinned,  that  I  have  need  to  go 
and  be  baptized  of  him?  Unless  my  saying  this  proceeds,  per- 
haps, irom  ignorance.'  And  in  the  same  gospel  it  is  said,  '  If  thy 
brother  oifend  thee  by  any  word,  and  make  thee  satisfaction,  if  it 
be  seven  times  in  a  day,  thou  must  forgive  him.  Simon  his  dis- 
ciple said  unto  him,  What!  seven  times  in  a  day?  The  Lord 
answered  and  said  unto  him,  I  tell  thee  also  till  seventy  times 
seven.'  " 

The  same  author,  in  his  commentary  on  Isaiah,  mentions  this 
gospel  in  the  following  manner:  "According  to  their  gospel, 
which  is  written  in  the  Hebrew  language,  and  read  by  the  Naza- 
renes,  the  whole  fountain  of  the  Holy  Ghost  descended  upon  him. 
Besides,  in  that  gospel  just  mentioned  we  find  these  things  writ- 
ten. '■  It  came  to  pass  when  the  Lord  ascended  from  the  waters, 
the  whole  fountain  of  the  Holy  Ghost  descended  and  rested  upon 
him,  and  said  to  him,  My  son,  among  (or  during  the  time  of)  all 
the  prophets,  I  was  waiting  for  thy  coming,  that  I  might  rest 
upon  thee ;  thou  art  my  first  begotten  Son,  who  shall  reign  to 
everlasting  ages.'  " 

And  in  liis  commentary  on  Ezekiel,  "  In  that  which  is  entitled 
the  gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews,  it  is  reckoned  among  tlie 
chief  of  crimes  for  a  person  to  make  sorrowful  the  heart  of  his 
brother." 

In  his  commentary  on  the  gospel  of  Matthew  he  has  the  follow- 
ing: "In  the  gospel  which  "the  Nazarenes  and  Ebionites  use, 
wliich  I  lately  translated  out  of  Hebrew  into  Greek,  and  which 
is  by  most  esteemed  the  authentic  gospel  of  Matthew,  tlie  man 
who  had  the  withered  hand  is  said  to  be  a  mason,  and  prayed  for 
relief  in  the  following  words  :  '  I  was  a  mason,  who  got  my  liveli- 
hood by  my  hands;  I  beseech  thee,  Jesus,  that  thou  wouldst  re- 
store me  to  my  strength,  that  I  may  no  longer  thus  scandalously 
beg  my  bread.'  " 

"  In  the  gospel  which  the  Nazarenes  use,  for  the  son  of  Bara- 
chiah,  I  find  written,  the  son  of  Jehoiada."  "  In  this  gospel  we 
read,  not  that  the  veil  of  the  temple  was  rent,  but  that  a  lintel  or 
beam  of  a  prodigious  size  fell  down."  "  In  the  Hebrew  gospel 
we  read,  that  our  Lord  said  to  his  disciples,  '  Be  ye  never  cheer- 
ful, unless  when  you  can  see  your  brother  in  love.'  " 

Concerning  this  gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews,  very  differ- 
ent opinions  have  been  expressed  by  learned  men.  Some  have 
even  pretended,  that  if  it  was  now  in  existence  it  would  be  greatly 
superior  to  tiie  Greek  copy,  but  generally  it  has  been  considered 
apocryphal,  for  very  good  reasons,  some  of  which  I  will  now  set 
down. 

1.  It  was  never  received  by  any  of  the  Fathers  as  canonical, 
or  cited  as  of  any  authority,  by  any  writer,  during  the  first  foui 
centuries. 

For  lull  proof  of  the  fact  here  stated,  I  would  refer  the  reader 
to  Jones  on  the  Canon,  vol.  iii. 

2.  This  gospel  was  apocryphal,  because  it  contained  severa/ 
things  contrary  to  known  and  undoubted  truths.  Of  tliis  sort  are 
the  passages  which  have  been  cited  respecting  Christ's  mannei 
of  speaking,  in  regard  to  the  baptism  of  John.   Also  the  accoun/ 


352  APPENDIX. 

which  it  contains  of  the  oath  of  the  apostle  James ;  for  it  is  evi- 
dent that  the  disciples  knew  nothing  of  C'hrist's  resurrection  from 
the  lieiid  until  after  that  event  occurred. 

3.  A  third  argument  of  tlie  apocryphal  character  of  this  gospel, 
is  derived  from'  the  ludicrous  and  silly  relations  which  it  con- 
tains— as  that  of  the  rich  man  scratching  his  liead,  and  the  Holy 
Ghost  taking  up  Christ  by  one  of  his  hairs,  and  carrying  him  to 
the  great  mountain  Tabor,  Sec 

The  most  probable  opinion  of  the  origin  of  this  gospel  is,  that 
it  was  a  corruption  ot  the  original  Hebrew  gospel  of  Mattliew, 
by  the  Ebionitcs.  These  heretics  having  this  gospel  in  their  pos- 
session, and  having  departed  from  the  true  faith,  mutilated  the 
gospel  of  IMatlhew,  by  striking  out  such  things  as  were  unt'avour- 
able  to  their  lieresy,  and  adding  such  fabulous  stories  as  suited 
their  purpose.  Of  the  fragments  which  remain,  there  is  not  one 
which  agrees  exactly  with  the  authentic  gospel  of  Matthew. 
Epiphanius  expressly  asserts,  that  the  Ebionites  used  the  gospel 
ot  .Matthew  alone,  and  that  in  Hebrew,  but  not  entire,  but  cor- 
rupted and  adulterated  ;  and  that  they  had  taken  away  the  gene- 
alogy from  the  beginning,  and  commenced  tlicir  gospel  with  these 
words,  "  And  it  came  to  pass  in  the  days  of  Herod,"  k.c. 


NOTE  F.     (Page  280.) 


THE   DECREE   OF   POPE  GELASIUS   CONCERNING  APOCRYPHAL 
BOOKS. 

1.  The  Travels  under  the  name  of  Peter,  which  is  also  called 
the  Eight  liooks  of  St.  Clemens.  2.  The  Acts  under  the  name 
of  Andrew  the  apostle.  3.  The  Acts  under  the  name  of  Philip 
the  apostle.  4.  Tlie  Acts  under  the  name  of  Peter.  5.  The  Acts 
under  the  name  of  Thomas  the  apostle  6.  The  gospel  undi-r  the 
name  of  Thaddetis.  7.  The  gospel  under  the  name  of  Thomas 
tlie  wjjostlc.  b.  'J'he  gosjjcl  under  the  name  of  Bai-nabus.  9.  The 
gospel  under  the  name  of  Bartholomew.  lU.  The  gospel  under 
the  name  of  Andrew  the  apostle.  11.  The  gospels  conupted  by 
Lucianus.  1-2.  The  go>^j)els  corrupted  by  Hcsychins.  13.  'i'he 
gospel  of  the  Infancy  of  our  Saviour.  14.  The  book  of  the  iNati- 
vily  of  our  Saviour  15.  The  book  called  the  Shepluid.  IG.  All 
the  books  made  by  Lentitius  the  disciple  of  the  devil.  17.  The 
Acts  of  Paul  and  Theida.  Iti.  "^I'lie  Ixevelation  of  I'homas. 
1!>.  The  ]{evelation  of  Paul.  i20.  The  Revelation  of  Stephen 
21.  The  travels  or  acts  of  Mary.  22.  The  book  called  the  Lots 
of  the  Apostles.  23.  The  book  called  the  Praise  of  the  Apostles. 
24.  The  book  of  the  Canon  of  the  Apostles.  25.  The  Letter  of 
Jesus  to  king  Abgarus — are  apocryphal. 


APPENDIX.  353 

NOTEG-.    (Page  287.) 
Paul's  epistle  to  the  laodiceans. 

Paul,  an  apostle,  not  of  men,  neither  by  man,  but  by  Jesus 
Christ,  to  the  brethren  which  are  at  Laodicea.  Grace  be  to  you, 
and  peace  from  God  the  Father,  and  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  I 
thank  Christ  in  every  prayer  of  mine,  that  ye  continue  and  per- 
severe in  good  works,  looking  for  that  which  is  promised  in  the 
day  of  judgment. 

Let  not  the  vain  speeches  of  any  trouble  you,  who  pervert  the 
truth,  that  they  may  draw  you  aside  from  the  truth  of  the  gospel 
which  I  have  preached.  And  now  may  God  grant  that  my  con- 
verts may  attain  to  a  perfect  knowledge  of  the  truth  of  the  gos- 
pel, be  beneficent,  and  doing  good  works,  which  accompany  sal- 
vation. And  now  my  bonds,  wljich  I  suffer  in  Christ,  are  mani- 
fest, in  which  I  rejoice  and  am  §lad.  For  I  know  that  this  shall 
turn  to  my  salvation  for  ever,  winch  shall  be  through  your  prayer, 
and  the  supply  of  the  Holy  Spirit;  whether  I  live  or  die;  (for) 
to  me  to  live  shall  be  a  life  to  Christ,  to  die  will  be  joy.  And  our 
Lord  will  grant  us  his  mercy,  that  ye  may  have  the  same  love, 
and  be  likeminded. 

Wherefore,  my  beloved,  as  ye  have  heard  of  the  coming  of  the 
Lord,  so  think  and  act  in  fear,  and  it  shall  be  to  you  life  eternal ; 
for  it  is  God  who  worketh  in  you ;  and  do  all  things  without  sin. 
And  what  is  best,  my  beloved,  rejoice  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
and  avoid  all  filthy  lucre.  Let  all  your  requests  be  made  known 
to  God,  and  be  steady  in  the  doctrine  of  Christ.  And  whatsoever 
things  are  sound,  and  true,  and  of  good  report,  and  chaste,  and 
just,  and  lovely,  these  things  do.  Those  things  which  ye  have 
heard  and  received,  think  on  these  things,  and  peace  shall  be 
with  you.  And  all  the  saints  salute  you.  The  grace  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  be  with  your  spirit.    Amen. 

Cause  this  epistle  to  be  read  to  the  Colossians,  and  the  epistle 
of  the  Colossians  to  be  read  among  you. 


NOTE  H.     (Page  292.) 


miracles   ascribed   to    CHRIST   IN    THE    BOOK    ENTITLED 
"THE   GOSPEL   OF   OUR    SAVIOUR's   INFANCY.^' 

Christ  is  represented  as  speaking  in  the  cradle,  and  telling  his 
mother  that  he  was  her  son. 

The  swaddling  clothes  in  which  he  was  wrapt,  when  thrown 
into  the  fire,  would  not  burn.  When  his  parents  entered  Egypt, 
in  their  fliglit  from  the  cruelty  of  Herod,  the  girth  of  the  saddle 
on  which  Mary  rode  broke,  and  the  great  idol  of  Egypt  fell  down 
al  the  approach  of  the  infant  Jesus. 
30* 


354  ArrENDix. 

By  means  of  the  babe's  swaddling  clothes,  several  devils  were 
cast  out  of  a  boy's  mouth,  in  the  shape  of  crows  and  serpents. 

A  company  of  robbers,  at  the  approach  of  Jesus,  were  fright- 
ened by  being  made  to  hear  a  sound,  as  of  an  army,  iizc. 

It  is  related,  that  a  girl  was  cured  of  a  leprosy  by  means  of 
water  in  which  Christ's  body  had  been  washed. 

That  a  young  man,  who  by  witchcraft  had  been  turned  into  a 
mule,  was,  upon  Christ's  mounting  him,  turned  again  into  a  man. 

On  one  occasion  he  is  said  to  have  turned  certain  boys,  who  hid 
Ihcm.selves  from  him,  into  kids,  and  then  at  the  intercession  of 
their  mothers  restored  them  again  to  their  proper  shape. 

A  boy  having  put  his  hand  mto  a  partridge's  nest,  to  take  out 
the  eggs,  was  bit  by  a  serpent,  whereupon  they  brought  him  to 
Jesus,  who  directed  them  to  carry  him  before  him,  to  the  place 
where  he  had  received  the  injury.  On  coming  to  the  spot,  Jesus 
called  for  the  serpent,  and  it  presently  came  iorth ;  and  he  said, 
*'  Go  and  suck  out  the  poison  which  thou  hast  infused  into  that 
boy  :"  so  the  serpent  crept  to  the  boy,  and  took  away  all  its  poison 
again.  He  also  cures  his  brother  James,  who,  in  gathering  sticks, 
was  bitten  by  a  viper. 

Being  one  day  on  the  house-top,  playing  with  some  boys,  one  of 
them  fell  down,  and  was  instantly  killed.  And  the  boy's  relations 
came  and  said  to  the  Lord  Jesus,  "  Thou  didst  throw  our  son 
down  from  the  house-top  ;"  but  he  denied  it,  and  said,  "  Let  us  go 
and  ask  himself."  Then  the  Lord  Jesus,  going  down,  stood  over 
the  dead  body,  and  said  with  a  loud  voice,  "  Zeinunus,  Zeinunus, 
who  threw  thee  down  ?"  Then  the  dead  boy  answered,  "Thou 
didst  not  throw  me  down,  but  such  a  one." 

Being,  on  a  certain  occasion,  sent  by  his  mother  to  the  well  for 
water,  the  pitcher  broke,  and  he  gathered  up  the  water  in  his 
garment,  and  brought  it  to  her. 

When  at  the  age  of  twelve  years  Jesus  was  at  Jerusalem,  a 
certain  astronomer  asked  him  whether  he  had  studied  astronomy. 
Upon  which  he  told  him  the  number  of  the  spheres  and  heavenly 
bodies.  &c.  There  was  there  also  a  philosopher,  who  asked  the 
Lord  Jesus  wlicther  he  had  ever  studied  physic.  He  replied,  and 
explained  to  him  physics  and  metaphysics,  the  powers  of  the 
body,  its  anatomv,  <fec.  But  from  this  time  he  began  to  conceal 
his  miracles,  and  wave  himself  to  the  study  of  the  law,  till  he  ar- 
rived to  the  end  of  his  thirtieth  year. 

See  tlie  "  Gospel  of  our  Saviour's  Infancy,"  complete  in  the 
second  volume  of  Jones  on  the  Canon. 


APPENDIX,  355 


EXTRACT  FROM  HALDANE  S   "EVIDENCE  AND  AUTHORITY 
OF   DIVINE   REVELATION.'^ 

"  It  has  been  asserted  that '  the  question  of  the  Canon  is  a  point 
of  erudition,  not  of  divine  revelation.'  This  is  to  undermine  both 
the  certainty  and  the  importance  of  the  sacred  Canon.  The  as- 
sertion, that  the  question  of  the  Canon  is  not  a  point  of  revela- 
tion, is  false.  It  is  not  true  either  of  the  Old  Testament  or  of  the 
New.  The  integrity  of  the  Canon  of  the  Old  Testament  is  a 
matter  of  revelation,  as  much  as  anything  contained  in  the  Bible. 
This  is  attested,  as  has  been  shown,  by  the  whole  nation  of  the 
Jews,  to  whom  it  was  committed  ;  and  their  fidelity  to  the  truth 
has  been  avouched  by  the  Lord  and  his  apostles.  Is  not  this  re- 
velation.? The  integrity  of  the  Canon  of  the  New  Testament  is 
equally  a  point  of  revelation.  As  God  had  said  to  the  Jews,  'Ye 
are  my  witnesses,'  and  as  they  '  received  the  lively  oracles  to 
give  unto  us,'  Acts  vii.  38,  so  the  Lord  Jesus  said  to  the  apostles, 
'  Ye  shall  be  witnesses  unto  me,  both  in  Jerusalem  and  all  Judea, 
and  in  Samaria,  and  unto  the  uttermost  part  of  the  earth.'  The 
first  churches  received  the  New  Testament  Scriptures  from  these 
witnesses  of  the  Lord,  and  thus  had  inspired  authority  for  those 
books.  It  was  not  left  to  erudition  or  reasoning  to  collect  that 
they  were  a  revelation  from  God.  This  the  first  Christians  knew 
from  the  testimony  of  those  who  wrote  them.  They  could  not  be 
more  assured  that  the  things  taught  were  from  God,  than  they 
were  that  the  writings  which  contained  them  were  from  God. 
The  integrity  of  the  sacred  Canon  is,  then,  a  matter  of  revela- 
tion, conveyed  to  us  by  testimony,  like  everything  contained  in 
the  Scriptures. 

"  While  it  has  been  denied  that  the  question  of  the  Canon  is  a 
point  of  revelation,  it  has  been  asserted  that  it  is  a  point  of  eru- 
dition. But  erudition  has  nothing  farther  to  do  with  the  question, 
than  as  it  may  be  employed  in  conveying  to  us  the  testimony. 
Erudition  did  not  produce  the  revelation  of  the  Canon.  If  the 
Canon  had  not  been  a  point  of  revelation,  erudition  could  never 
have  made  it  so — for  erudition  can  create  nothing;  it  can  only  in- 
vestigate and  confirm  truth,  and  testify  to  that  which  exists,  or 
detect  error.  We  receive  the  Canon  of  Scripture  by  revelation, 
in  the  same  way  that  the  Jews  received  the  Law  which  was  given 
from  Mount  Sinai.  Only  one  generation  of  the  Jews  witnessed 
the  giving  of  the  Law,  but  to  all  future  generations  of  that  people 
it  was  equally  a  matter  of  revelation.  The  knowledge  of  this 
was  conveyed  to  them  by  testimony.  In  the  same  way  Christians, 
in  their  successive  generations,  received  the  Scripture  as  a  mat- 
ter of  revelation.  The  testimony  through  which  tliis  is  received, 
must,  indeed,  be  translated  from  a  foreign  language;  but  so  must 
the  account  brought  to  us  of  any  occurrence,  the  most  trivial, 
that  takes  place  in  a  foreign  country.  If  in  this  sense  the  ques- 
tion of  the  Canon  be  called  a  point  of  erudition,  the  gospel  itself 
must  be  called  a-point  of  erudition  ;  for  it,  too,  must  be  translated 
from  the  original  language  in  which  it  was  announced,  as  also 


356  APPENDIX. 

must  everytliin^  which  the  Scriptures  contain.  When  a  preacher 
iuculcales"  ihe  beliei  of  the  gospel,  or  ol"  a  doctrine  of  Scripture, 
or  obedience  to  any  duty,  would  he  be  warranted  in  telling  his 
audience  that  these  are  questions  of  erudition,  not  of  divine  reve- 
lation? Erudition  may  be  allowed  its  full  value,  without  sus- 
pending on  it  the  authority  of  the  word  of  God. 

'•  'ihe  assertion  that  the  question  of  the  Canon  is  a  point  of  eru- 
dition, not  of  divine  revelation,  is  subversive  of  the  whole  of  reve- 
lation. We  have  no  way  of  knowing  that  the  miracles  related  in 
the  Scriptures  were  wrought,  and  that  the  doctrines  inculcated 
were  taught,  but  by  testimony  and  the  internal  evidence  of  the 
books  themselves.  We  have  the  evidence  of  miracles,  as  that 
evidence  comes  to  us  by  the  testimony  which  vouches  the  authen- 
ticity of  the  inspired  books.  As  far  as  the  genuineness  and  au- 
thenticity of  any  book  are  brought  into  suspicion,  so  far  is  every- 
thing contained  in  it  brought  into  suspicion.  For  it  should  always 
be  remembered,  that  there  is  no  greater  absurdity  than  to  ques- 
tion the  claim  of  a  book  to  a  place  in  the  Canon,  and  at  the  same 
time  to  acUnowledL'e  its  contents  to  be  a  revelation  from  God. 
There  can  be  no  cv^idence  that  the  doctrines  of  Scripture  are  re- 
vealed truths,  unless  we  are  certain  that  the  books  of  Scripture 
are  revelation,  if  the  books  which  compose  the  Canon  are  not 
matter  of  revelation,  then  we  have  no  revelation.  If  the  truth 
of  the  Canon  be  not  established  to  us  as  matter  of  revelation, 
then  the  books  of  which  it  is  composed  are  not  so  established; 
and  if  the  books  be  not  so,  then  not  one  sentence  of  them,  nor 
one  doctrine  or  precept,  which  they  contain,  comes  established 
to  us  as  a  revelation  Irom  God.  If,  then,  the  question  of  the 
Canon  be  a  point  of  erudition,  not  of  divine  revelation,  so  is  every 
doctrine  wl)ich  the  Scriptures  contain;  for  the  doctrine  cannot 
be  assured  revelation,  if  the  book  that  contains  it  be  not  assured 
revelation.  There  can  be  no  higher  evidence  of  the  doctrine 
being  revelation,  than  of  the  book  that  contains  it :  and  thus  were 
not  the  Canon  a  matter  of  divine  revelation,  the  whole  Bible 
would  be  stripped  of  divine  authority.  Anything,  therefore,  that 
goes  to  iinsettle  the  Canon,  goes  to  unsettle  every  doctrine  con- 
tained in  the  Canon. 

"  Without  a  particular  revelation  to  every  individual,  it  does 
not  appear  that  the  authority  of  the  Canon  could  be  ascertained 
to  us  in  any  other  way  than  it  is  at  present.  The  whole  of  the 
S<;ripturcs  was  given  at  fust  by  revelation,  and  afterwards  this 
revelation  was  confirmed  by  ordinary  means.  The  testimony 
concerning  it  has  been  handed  down  to  the  churches  from  one 
generation  to  another.  On  this,  and  on  their  own  internal  cliar- 
acteristics  of  beipg  divine,  we  receive  the  Scrij)tures  witli  the 
most  unsuspecting  confidence,  and  on  the  same  ground  the  Jews 
received  the  Scri|)lures  of  the  Old  Testament.  In  these  ways  it 
is  fixed  by  divine  authority,  and  not  left  in  any  uncertainty  ;  for, 
if  its  truth  can  be  ascertained  by  onlinary  means,  it  is  fixed  by 
(he  authority  of  (Jod,  as  much  as  if  an  angel  from  heaven  were 
every  day  to  proclaim  it  over  the  earth.  VN'hcn  Paul  says,  that 
his  handwriting  of  the  salutation  was  tlie  token  in  every  epistle, 
he  at  once  shows  us  the  imjjortance  of  the  Canon,  and  warrants 
us  in  receiving  it  as  a  divine  revehition  attested  by  ordinary 
means.    Those  to  whom  he  wrote  had  no  other  way  of  kjiouiug 


APPENDIX.  357 

the  handwritinor  of  the  apostle,  than  that  by  which  they  knew  any 
otlier  handwriting.  Even  at  that  time  the  churches  knew  the 
genuineness  of  the  epistles  sent  to  them  by  ordinary  means;  and 
Paul's  authority  warrants  this  as  sufficient.  We  have,  tlien,  the 
authority  of  revelation  for  resting  the  Canon  on  the  ordinary 
sources  of  human  evidence,  and  they  are  such  as  to  preclude  the 
possibility  of  deception.  The  claim  of  the  epistles  sent  to  the 
first  churches,  and  of  the  doctrine  they  contain  as  divine,  rested 
even  to  those  churciies  on  the  same  kind  of  evidence  on  which 
we  now  receive  them.  It  is  very  important  to  settle  what  kind 
of  evidence  is  sufficient  for  our  receiving  the  Scriptures.  Many 
have  rated  this  too  high ;  and  as  the  Scriptures  contain  a  revela- 
tion, they  wished  to  have  them  attested  to  every  age  by  reveki- 
tion,  which  is,  in  fact,  requiring  the  continuance  of  miraculous 
interference,  which  it  might  easily  be  shown  would  be  perni- 
cious."— Pp.  147 — 150. 

"  If  it  should  be  asked.  Should  we  be  precluded  from  inquiring 
into  the  grounds  on  which  the  Canon  is  received.''  it  is  replied, 
Certainly  not.  But  we  should  remember  that  the  permanent 
ground  on  which  it  stands  is  testimony  ;  and  such  must  be  the 
ground  of  every  historical  fact  Internal  evidence  may  confirm 
the  authenticity  of  a  book  sanctioned  by  the  Canon,  but  to  sus- 
pend belief  till  we  receive  such  confirmation,  argues  an  ignorance 
of  the  principles  of  evidence.  A  book  might  be  inspired,  when 
no  such  internal  confirmation,  from  the  nature  of  tiie  subject, 
might  be  found.  And  when  a  book  is  suhstantially  approved,  by 
testimony,  as  belonging  to  the  Canon,  no  evidence  can,  by  a 
Christian,  be  legitimately  supposed  possible,  in  opposition  to  its 
inspiration.  This  would  be  to  suppose  valid  objections  to  first 
pi  inciples.  Sufficient  testimony  deserves  the  same  rank  as  a  first 
principle  with  axioms  themselves.  Axioms  are  not  more  neces- 
sary than  testimony,  to  all  the  business  of  human  life.  Internal 
evidence  may  be  sufficient  to  prove  tliat  a  book  is  not  divine ;  but 
it  is  absurd  to  suppose  that  such  a  book  can  have  valid  testimony, 
and  therefore  it  can  never  be  supposed  by  a  Christian,  that  any 
of  those  books  that  are  received  as  part  of  the  sacred  Canon,  on 
the  authority  of  sufficient  testimony,  can  contain  any  internal 
marks  of  imposture.  This  would  be  to  suppose  the  possibility  of 
the  clashing  of  two  first  principles.  The  thing  that  can  be  proved 
by  a  legitimate  first  principle,  can  never  be  disproved  by  another 
legitimate  first  principle.  This  would  be  to  suppose  that  God  is 
not  the  author  of  the  human  constitution.  If,  then,  in  a  book  re- 
cognized by  the  Canon,  as  the  Song  of  Solomon,  we  find  matter 
which  to  our  wisdom  does  not  appear  to  be  worthy  of  inspiration, 
we  may  be  assured  that  we  mistake.  For  if  that  book  is  authen- 
ticated by  testimony  as  a  part  of  the  sacred  Scriptures,  which 
the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  sanctioned,  it  is  authenticated  by  a  first 
principle,  to  which  God  has  bound  us,  by  the  constitution  of  our 
nature,  to  submit.  If,  in  this  instance,  or  in  any  particular  in- 
stance, we  reject  it,  our  own  conduct  in  other  things  will  be  our 
condemnation.  Tliere  is  no  first  principle  in  the  constitution  of 
man  that  can  entitle  him  to  reject  anything  in  the  Song  of  Solo- 
mon, coming,  as  it  does,  under  the  sanction  of  a  first  principle. 
Those  persons  who  reject  any  book  of  the  Canon  on  such  grounds, 


a58  APPENDIX. 

would  show  themselves  much  more  rational,  as  well  as  more 
humble  Christians,  if,  recognizing  the  paramount  authority  of  a 
first  principle  universally  acknowledged,  they  would  view  the 
Sonii  of  Solomon  and  the  book  of  Esther,  as  any  other  part  of  the 
word  of  God,  and  humbly  endeavour  to  gain  from  them  the  in- 
struction and  edification  which,  as  divine  books,  they  must  be 
calculated  to  give.  This  questioning  of  the  Canon,  then,  pro- 
ceeds on  infidel  and  irrational  principles,  which,  if  carried  to  their 
legitimate  length,  must  end  in  complete  unbelief." — Pp.  153,  4. 

'^  It  is  a  woirderful  circumstance  in  the  providence  of  God,  that 
while  tlie  two  parts  of  .Scripture  were  delivered  to  two  classes, 
with  the  fullest  attestation  of  their  divine  original,  both  the  one 
and  the  other  have  been  faithful  in  preserving  the  precious  trust 
respectively  committed  to  them,  while  they  have  both  been  rebel- 
lious in  regard  to  that  part  of  which  they  were  not  originally  ap- 
pointed the  depositaries.  The  Jews  always  held  the  books  of  the 
Old  Testament  in  the  highest  veneration,  and  continued  to  pre- 
serve them,  w  ithout  addition  or  diminution,  until  the  coming  of 
Him  concerning  whom  they  testify,  and  they  have  kept  them  en- 
tire to  this  day;  yet  they  have  altogether  rejected  the  INew  Tes- 
tament Scriptures.  And  while  Christians  have  all  agreed  in  pre- 
serving the  Scri{)tures  of  the  New  Testament  entire  and  uncor- 
ri!|)ted,  they  have  wickedly  adulterated  those  of  the  Old  by  a 
spuiious  addition,  or  have  retrenched  certain  portions  of  them. 
Of  the  divine  original  of  the  sacred  Scriptures,  as  we  now  possess 
them,  we  have  evidence  the  most  abundant  and  diversified.  It  is 
the  distinguishing  characteristic  of  the  gospel,  that  it  is  preached 
to  the  poor,  and  God  has  so  ordered  it,  that  the  authenticity  of 
that  word  by  which  all  are  to  be  judged,  should  not  be  presented 
to  them  as  a  matter  of  doubtful  disputation. 

"  Were  there  no  otiier  evidence  of  the  truth  of  divine  revela- 
tion than  the  existence  of  the  holy  Scriptures,  that  alone  would 
be  conclusive.  The  Bible  is  not  a  book  compiled  by  a  single  au- 
thor, nor  by  many  authors  acting  in  confederacy  in  the  same  age, 
in  which  case  it  would  not  be  so  wonderful  to  find  a  just  and  close 
connection  in  its  several  parts.  It  is  the  work  of  between  thirty 
and  forty  writers,  in  very  different  conditions  of  life,  from  the 
throne  and  sceptre  down  to  the  lowest  degree,  and  in  very  dis- 
tant ages,  during  which  the  world  must  have  put  on  an  entirely 
new  api)carance.  and  men  must  have  had  different  interests  to 
pursue.  This  would  have  led  a  spirit  of  imposture  to  vary  its 
schemes,  and  to  adapt  them  to  different  stations  in  the  world, 
and  to  dilferent  fashions  and  changes  in  every  age.  David  wrote 
about  four  hundred  years  after  Moses,  and  Isaiah  about  two 
hundred  and  fifty  years  after  David,  and  John  aboiit  eight  hun- 
drj'd  years  after  Isaiah.  Yet  these  authors,  with  all  the  otlier 
prophets  and  apostles,  wrote  in  perfect  harmon}^ — confirming  the 
authority  of  tlieir  j)redecessors,  labouring  to  enforce  their  in- 
structions, and  denouncing  the  severest  judgments  on  all  who 
continued  disobedient.  Such  entire  agreement  in  propounding 
religious  truths  and  ])rin(;i])les,  different  from  any  before  or  since 
|»roiinilgat(nl,  except  by  tlio'^e  who  have  learned  from  them,  estab- 
lishes tlie  ilivine  mission  of  the  writers  of  the  IJible  beyond  dis])ute, 
proving  that  they  all  derived  their  wisdom  from  God,  and  spake  as 


APPENDIX.  359 

they  were  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost.  In  all  the  works  of  God  there 
is  an  analogy  cliaracterislic  of  his  divine  hand;  and  tlie  variety 
and  harmony  that  shine  so  conspicuously  in  the  heavens  and  the 
earth,  are  not  fartlier  removed  from  tlie  suspicion  of  imposture 
than  the  unity  that,  in  the  midst  of  boundless  variety,  reigns  in 
that  book  which  reveals  the  plan  of  redemption.  To  forge  tlt^ 
Jiible  is  as  impossible  as  to  Jorge  a  world." — l^p.  156,  7. 


THE     END. 


r 


